< 15 January	17 January >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarion Mall[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable mall, no reliable sourcing found. Prod overturned without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a small, not-notable mall serving its immediate vicinity. I could find no independent sources referring to it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Wikipedia is not a shopping mall directory, which this listing appears to be, with one self-citation. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article only has the mall's website and no inline citations, so fails WP:V#Notability and WP:DEL7 IAR. I found a 1992 reference that showed a GLA of 252,000 sq ft, which still leaves it smaller than a regional mall as per the ICSC. A mitigating factor is that a sub-regional indoor mall in a community of 5000 population, would be prominent. In a quick search I found that Google had some newspaper coverage from neighboring communities. For example, the Brody's was the first branch of the main Brody's in Indiana, PA. There was another Brody's 40 miles away that resulted in a lawsuit. Without the topic being covered at Clarion, there is no current need for a redirect, but there is room for development. Unscintillating (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per K.e.coffman. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIR. I see very little coverage about it other than listings. Mkdw ^talk 05:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable mall. Ajf773 (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails our GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearfield Mall[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable mall, no reliable sourcing found. Prod overturned without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Joshualouie711^talk 00:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be a small, not-notable mall serving its immediate vicinity. I could find no independent sources referring to it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or the yellow pages. Does not seemingly meet WP:NCORP. Mkdw ^talk 05:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails our GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Paterakis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable declared politician lacking significant coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:1EVENT. One reference is a dead link and the others are a duplicate. reddogsix (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable, if he makes headway in the election than maybe but not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG or even WP:NPOL. One citation is an invalid page on the State Board of Elections site; "more references" turns out to be 3 different copies of the same press release, added first by a now-blocked user, followed 2 days later by a new account. (Maybe those sites should go on the wiki blacklist if they don't distinguish between journalism and press releases.) --Closeapple (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future party primary; if you cannot demonstrate that he already had enough preexisting notability to get a Wikipedia article on other grounds (e.g. having already held another notable political office, or having passed our inclusion criteria in some other occupation), then he does not get an article because politics until he wins the gubernatorial election. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POUTCOMES. We can't have an article on every run of the mill candidate. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons listed above. ALPolitico (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too soon and the individual does not meet our criteria for WP:ANYBIO. Mkdw ^talk 05:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't create an article for every candidate for office. Revisit if he is making headlines a year from now. SOXROX (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai George Serbanescu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't come close to passing WP:NTENNIS. This is a self-promoting autobiography. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, WP:TOOSOON. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like all minor league college athlete, not notable as well. Cylon B (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The ITF Men's Circuit is the lowest rung on the professional tennis circuit; he's not even on the ATP Challenger Tour let alone the main tour. Fails WP:NTENNIS.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pawnkingthree. The individual does not yet meet WP:NTENNIS. Mkdw ^talk 05:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - right now not notable in every sense of this word. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Also WP:TOOSOON. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Greyhawk deities (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pyremius[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Greyhawk deities, unless some decent third-party sources can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities. Unnotable D&D deity with no non-primary sources. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minkenry[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google search shows hits on this Wikipedia article (already), YouTube, the book (a promotional reference), and interviews with the author, who is promoting his book. Too soon to see if this sport becomes popular. Using Wikipedia to promote something new. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Promotional and hardly noteworthy of an article with zero viable sourcing. The Amazon link in the article doesn't even work anymore. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches do not indicate sufficient notability (in contrast to the time-honoured and manly pasttime of ferret-legging! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, per WP:SNOW--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Steele[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the biography has only marginal notability, all of it stemming from a single event linked to news stories and the press about a leaked Dossier concerning Donald Trump. The Dossier has not been validated as genuine, yet we have an article on its alleged ghost writer. Without verified sources, this bio has issues for WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - He is mostly notable for the single event, as you mentioned. He has notability for assisting the FBI in their corruption investigation of FIFA. That is stated explicitly in Reuters and other news stories. It does not seem that he is notable for any specific activity regarding the Litvinenko assassination, as there is only vague and contradictory information about his involvement in that investigation, from "sources" or hearsay. There is certainly a huge amount of press coverage about him due to the (probably discredited) dossier about Trump though.--FeralOink (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His role in the FIFA corruption investigation + the Russia dossier, combined with a 20-year high-level career in M16, would seem to make WP:ONEEVENT inapplicable here. There is fairly extensive/robust/in-depth coverage of the man personally as well, although it is all quite recent. In all, I do think this gets over the hurdle. Neutrality^talk 23:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You have suggested something I did not consider. Whether the Dossier is proven to be fake or not, his involvement in these events may in fact be notable just due to the fact the whole mess happened in the first place. I am still concerned about WP:BLP issues for the subject of the article. Either way it falls out, he is likely to get a lot of notoriety he may not want, and being in the public eye may not be good for an intelligence person's career. We should consider the affect of a bio on someone in such a position. Unless he comes forward and publicly admits he is the author of this document, I still think there are issues with BLP. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is a former intelligence person. He left MI6 in 2009. His work for the FBI (regarding FIFA) and for the Washington D.C. political intelligence company was done in his capacity as a principal of his private company, Orbis. He founded Orbis in March 2009, did the FIFA-related investigatory work in 2010-2012, and the Trump dossier work in 2016. He lives in a US$1.8 million mansion in England, according to multiple media sources, so I don't think he is out in the cold, so to speak. I am uncertain about how I feel regarding this article, so I will only make comments for now.--FeralOink (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the guy had an important role in the FIFA investigation then why are we having trouble finding pre-dossier reliable sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The rudimentary search tools generally used, including the WP tools above, make it hard to filter out the very highly trafficked, most recent news sites. But there is, as others note below, mention of CS with regard to his retirement, earlier intelligence work, FIFA investigation, etc. This despite the nature of his work making it his and his prior employer's aim not to receive media coverage. It is with these, and by this standard, that he should be judged. Cheers. 73.210.155.96 (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - widely discussed in the news. It's not a surprise that he wouldn't have been named before - British news articles wouldn't reveal the name of a British spy (former or present) unless he had been named in another country's news media first. Blythwood (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I don't think Steele was on anyone's radar prior to the dossier, conditions #2 and #3 of WP:BLP1E are not met. Steele, a 20-year MI6 agent and the co-founder and director of Orbis Business Intelligence, is not a low-profile individual. He had substantial roles in helping bring down Sepp Blatter in the 2015 FIFA corruption case and in the production of the dossier, both significant events. I don't know if his role in the murder investigation of Alexander Litvinenko was large or not. Examining some of the 30+ references currently in the article, many of them are rich with detail about Steele's life and history. We are not in danger of creating a pseudo-biography as there's plenty of material to work with. Also, I'm sure if/when additional evidence supporting or contradicting the dossier comes out, the case for notability will only be stronger. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 03:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't help but notice that any article that says anything negative about Trump is being considered for deletion. Christopher Steele has been in the news constantly for the last week. If these allegations are proven (and who knows if they will be?), they have the potential to bring down the White House. Of course the guy is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Necropolis Hill (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was on the radar since he lost his cover in 1999: The D-Notice, according to investigative journalist Duncan Campbell, drew even more attention to the list. Read: http://www.duncancampbell.org/menu/journalism/guardian/cybersillies.pdf : "It was Monday May 10 [1999], when the eccentric US-based Executive Intelligence Review placed its latest report, 'The MI6 factor', on the internet. This contained the famous list of 115 MI6 officers, now so widely disseminated following a government D-notice drawing attention to it, that all foreign powers know who they are". Paul Wood wrote: Allegations of a sex tape involving Donald Trump could potentially be the biggest scandal US history – eclipsing the Watergate scandal that ended Richard Nixon’s presidency. --87.156.234.131 (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this does not meet the third criteria of WP:BLP1E, which states,

If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

Christopher Steele's role in the Russia dossier is significant, substantial, and well documented. Combine this with the other claims of notability in the article, and there can be no question as to the subject's notability. Brad v 06:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article provides useful background on him (ie with extensive intelligence contacts in Russia), that helps contextualise his role in the dossier. He has also played a role in other high-profile espionage cases Xcia0069 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is notable outside of the dossier, which at this point he is still not the confirmed author of. - Scarpy (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That was already discussed here. This is not someone notable for only one event. Policy [1] tells: "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. ..."

Actually, none of these conditions was met. #1. No, he was involved in several other high profiles events, including FIFA corruption scandal and Litvinenko poisoning. #2 This is already a very high profile individual. #3. The event was significant, and the role was significant. This is someone plainly notable. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep but move to Donald Trump dossier.~~ Merge into Donald Trump–Russia dossier. It appears to that Steele falls into WP:BLP1E. Although he played some unknown role in the FIFA and Litvinenko investigations, no one has been able to find any reliable sources covering those roles, so they evidently weren't newsworthy. The guy is clearly low-profile as he avoided the public spotlight until the dossier became public. On the other hand, the dossier is obviously highly notable and will continue to receive heavy media coverage. This coverage is already swamping Steele's biography and will continue to do so more and more. And we have no article dedicated to the dossier, as far as I know. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How come? According to the sources currently quoted on the page, he was a case officer of Litvinenko and his role in investigating FIFA scandal was significant. These events are highly notable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: There is a new article about the Donald Trump–Russia dossier. I'm not sure how you could possibly merge this article into it, as there's already a discussion about merging that with 2016 United States election interference by Russia. I also don't understand what advantage there would be in merging all of this together, other than as a roundabout path to deletion. Brad v 20:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for pointing me to that new article. I've changed my !vote accordingly, ~~and will weigh in on that other merge proposal at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia~~. I don't see much of a merge discussion there. Maybe I'm missing it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, there is no active merge discussion there. The previous one about merging with this page appears to have concluded. Nevertheless, the remainder of my comment above still stands, as well as my comments previously about WP:BLP1E. Brad v 20:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I think this one is a Keep as per WP:SNOW. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see also withdrawn merge proposal based on BLP1E Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia#Proposed merge with Christopher_Steele. Widefox; talk 02:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge with Donald Trump–Russia dossier article. A profile of Steele would, I think, be better suited as a subsection of the main dossier article—rather than a fully fledged Wikipedia entry. Frevangelion (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the connection to Seele is based on allegations. Wikipedia is not a zone for gossip-mongering, as I repeatedly claimed while defending my !vote to delete the dossier article on the discussion page. Frevangelion (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After careful deliberation, and the claims made about Steele's relevance to issues other than the dossier—as made apparent by 73.210.155.96—I move to keep this article from deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frevangelion (talk • contribs) 13:42, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

Keep per Bradv. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Christopher Steele is an outed former intelligence officer responsible for a significant period for the Russia desk for a British intelligence service, who also contributed to the FIFA and other investigations since retiring. Hence, he is an individual notable apart from this event, and so should have a separate article. (The fact that recent events have brought most of this information to the fore is immaterial to the question of his notability. Jack Welch was a notable business person before taking the helm of GE; that his taking this last position made him the more noteworthy was no argument for lessened importance of prior efforts, or for keeping him to the GE article.) Steele's article can evolve away from its overemphasis on the dossier matter, which should eventually become a short section, with a main article tag pointing to the full article, so this article can focus on the life and career of the man. Cheers. 73.210.155.96 (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable for the investigation of FIFA previous to the dossier event. WP:BLP1E does not apply here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @DrFleischman: @My very best wishes: et al. - Steele is not a low-profile guy, not in 1986 after becoming President of the Cambridge Union debating society, not 1999 after the D-Notice blew up his cover up, not as case officer to FSB-defector Alexander Litvinenko, not 2015 by the Bicentenary Cambridge Debate laughing with former Tory leader Michael Howard, Baron Howard of Lympne (read: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4113576/Former-MI6-spy-hiding-Russians-Trump-dirty-dossier-1million-two-years-working-undercover-supplying-FBI-information-cracked-open-corruption-FIFA.html)... he was one of the more eminent Russia specialists for the MI6 (read: https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/12/intelligence-sources-vouch-credibility-donald-trump-russia-dossier-author). He didn't tried to avoided public spotlight: he has a well groomed Linked in Page https://uk.linkedin.com/in/chris-steele-87151a6a?trk=prof-samename-name.

Is it even possibel to be low-profile after setting up his own intelligence agency between Buckingham Palace and US-Embassy? Steele told journalist David Corn he had taken his dossier to the FBI and told: 'The story has to come out'. He was prepared for the buzz since October 2016! He was feeding the buzz - pun intended. Good marketing. Not only the search tools are rudimentary, we were not searching in German, Arabic (Qatar), Russian or Italian media... Added somthing from Der Spiegel to his article. --87.159.120.134 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out that all of the cited reliable sources (including those you cite in your reply) were published in the last week, after the dossier became public. Unless someone finds pre-2017 sources indicating otherwise, Steele's prior work wasn't high-profile enough to be covered by the news media. I see two plausible explanations for this: either his prior roles have been recently exaggerated, or his roles were previously hidden from the media due to their sensitive nature or his previous spy work. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IP. You are making very good points here. Please create named account and contribute to this and other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. conditions #2 and #3 of WP:BLP1E are not met. A significant individual with massive allegations and a non private life history. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously sufficient coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nan McNamara[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally tagged under A7 however it was declined due to sources being added after, Anyway non notable actress/director, Sources in the article are simply mentions and I cannot find anything substantial, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NACTOR and GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 00:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only does the subject not meet WP:NACTOR, but the two awards are merely local in nature ("small theatre in Southern California" in one case and "theatre in Los Angeles" in the other"). NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not overly worried about the awards. They're local awards -- every major city will have their own theatre awards -- and sometimes the recipients are notable. I'm just not seeing enough coverage to support WP:SIGCOV or put us comfortably past WP:BLP1E. Mkdw ^talk 05:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Consensus is that this person is notable, and the half-page feature covering him in today's newspapers published by Stuff.co.nz further reinforces that. Schwede 66 19:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Liddell[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is insanely promotional. An editor who has openly admited to a WP:COI (see here) has come along and filled the page with purly WP:PROMO language. Even without this language I do not see any indication of WP:GNG. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am still in the process of editing and welcome advice/assistance from anyone. This is the first page that I have edited and it is proving to be a real learning experience. Thanks Zackmann08 - I will keep working on it based on your feedback. GeorgeLiddell (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This person has recently broke out in the news with being one of Donald Trumps assistants. I have added these sources, however it will need to be fixed up and updated. --TheDomain (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Former vice-chairman of GM; former CFO of GM, Microsoft and International Paper and current CFO of William Morris Endeavor, which I believe is the world's largest talent agency (if not, it's way up there); adviser to incoming US President, all of which is being reported by reliable sources. Clearly notable. That being said, it does need to be drastically cleaned up, and User:GeorgeLiddell obviously has an insurmountable WP:COI and should step away from the article, following the guideline "COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead." TJRC (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has not been established. I am happy to be shown otherwise. by cody 04:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TJRC I acknowledge that I have a WP:COI, I will no longer make edits to this page. GeorgeLiddell (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and speedy close, given that he's been appointed to lead Trump's strategic development group, per User:TheDomain and User:TJRC. Unquestionably notable. This is no reflection on the nominator, as this happened after the nomination for deletion.-gadfium 08:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is now clearly notable as a White House assistant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has been covered in the news media for over 15 years, at least in the New Zealand news media. He has honours (CNZM) and has long had a high profile in NZ. His notability is not going to decrease with his appointment by Trump to a White House role. Nurg (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and possible early close? - Clearly notable as a White House assistant. Also, promotional articles require cleanup not deletion if the subject(s) of the article are notable. J 947 19:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a G12 copyvio. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual quotient[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Eturk001 (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was flagged for multiple issues in April 2016. Those were not addressed by any other editors. Recent suggestion on talk page is to delete the article as it does not seem to be a notable topic. The page may have been created as a promotion as 3 citations were to a company PDF.

I do have a concern about deletion, rather than improvement, in that the further reading sections does include 4 books specifically on the topic. It could just be that this is a fringe pseudoscience topic not demanding an encyclopedia article. Eturk001 (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:V. It's an almost completely unsourced WP:PROFRINGE essay that, assuming the subject is notable (not a given), would have to be completely rewritten from scratch. It's not worth the effort. Nuke it and if someone thinks the subject is notable enough for an article they can start with a blank slate and do it right, with proper sources and appropriate respect for FRINGE and WP:DUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Per reasons mentioned above. I looked for sources, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely there could ever be an article written on this topic for WP. Delta13C (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent sources to establish notability that would warrant a stand alone article. Also 100% of the text is a WP:COPYVIO copypasted from [2] and [3] - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
iNuke it from orbit. and WP:COPYVIO should be immediately removed. Should I do it while this discussion is open? Roxy the dog. bark 17:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the article for CSD per G12. I am not going to nuke it myself as I am INVOLVED here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move along, nothing to see Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Shearer (what a guy)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable athlete whose name doesn't return any relevant search results outside of Wikipedia. The article doesn't have much context, either. Carrot official (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is clearly a joke (a "notable" mini-basketball player??). The article was already nominated for speedy deletion; I don't know why the nominator felt the need to add an AFD to the mix. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I didn't see the speedy deletion nomination until I reloaded the page Carrot official (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lamashtu (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. Completely in-universe with zero viable third-party sources. Not worthy of individual article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. Minor D&D character, with no non-primary sources, but as she is currently not included in the demon lord list, a merge is appropriate. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Johnson (author)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. It seems to be self-written. Although interesting, the subject is not notable. The information about his life are just links to Friends Reunited. The section on books are links to online catalogues containing books written to him. Wikipedia policy is not to have articles on every author ever to have lived. Later sections link almost exclusively to timetabler.com, his personal website. Although the author of the article has created an interesting page, it is not one supported by adequate sources or suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. It should also be noted that previous deletion discussion on the talk page has contributions from multiple one-off editors in support of the subject. 2A00:23C4:A688:DB00:D4F6:B412:33B8:ACD1 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor per request at WT:AFD. Above text is copied from article talk page. I remain neutral on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 21:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had a go at improving this article in 2013, and 3+ years later no-one has written anything substantial about the subject. It fails WP:GNG, and WP:AUTHOR. Flat Out (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as WP:PROMO. Johnson writes introductory textbooks and produces visual teaching aids. Quite a few of the sources are teaching tools (#56 is a good example [4]). Others are dead (#27 " "School Science Review Article". School Science Review. SSR Vol 60, No. 212, 1979, 562) Citation #11 does lead to a list of genuine reviews on Johnson's personal webpage of the teaching tools he produces in journals such as "Association for Science Education : School Science Review" (the first one linked) is interesting because the Bold purple highlighting of the words "of such excellent quality and durability" refers to the physical quality of the "overlays" for use in an old-fashioned overhead projector; not to the caliber of the book itself. I did not click every one of the 58 citations (many are dead, others conspicuous primary sources, such as the publishers) What I did not see was any coverage of Johnson himself, or of his career, or an indication that any of the teaching tools or textbooks he has written are at all notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the article has been WP:REFBOMBed, not a single one suggests the subject passes WP:BIO or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arslan Sadiq[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. Of the two third-party articles, one only reproduces his tweet that used a hastag that was the subject of the article, and the other is a list of 'entrepreneurs to watch' that has no qualifying criteria noted on a blog by someone of unclear notability. ... discospinster _talk 20:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly trying to promote someone's own business. W Nowicki (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:G11 and WP:A7. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Adams[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Canadian actor. Likeshook (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to Dwayne. Deleting the article does not mean you are a bad person or a flunkie.

WP:Entertainer states "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

This article has been around for 10 years but Adams neither had significant roles in multiple notable films, lacks a large fan base, and has not made notable contributions. Likeshook (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Likeshook, would you strike your above !vote. The nomination in itself is your opinion to delete. — Sam Sailor 14:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the word "delete" but kept the rest because it explains the reasoning for the AFD. Likeshook (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Filmography outside "Skinnamarink TV" is nothing but non-notable bit parts, such as "Attendee #2," "Customer #1," "Manager" and "Painter." sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actor credited only in minor roles, fails WP:NACTOR. Nothing to support WP:ANYBIO and no sources found to support subject meets WP:BASIC. Delete per WP:DEL8. — Sam Sailor 14:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' not enough significant roles to pass our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any substantive coverage of him on ProQuest — of the 27 hits I get, 18 of them are about a Bermudian soccer player, and of the seven which are actually about a Canadian actor all seven just namecheck his existence and exactly zero of them are substantively about him. And no role named here (or in his IMDb profile) is "major" enough to grant him a presumption of notability in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass either — as always, Wikipedia is not a place where an actor is automatically entitled to an article just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The individual needs a few more major roles to meet WP:NACTOR. Without more WP:SIGCOV I'm inclined to !vote delete. Mkdw ^talk 05:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Pictou County Crushers season[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Junior hockey team. Clearly WP:NOTAWEBHOST. Only sources are the homepage of the team which do not indicate notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We permit articles of this type for teams in professional sports leagues, not necessarily junior ones — and the ticket to getting it over the bar as more notable than the norm would be media coverage, not the team's own self-published content about itself. (For the record, I have no connection to the Truro Bearcats who are named in this article as an opponent of the Pictou County Crushers, so this is not a COI on my part.) Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. There is no Wikipedia policy stating "state parties are not notable". Mass nominations are usually done with articles using the same set of sources (e.g., soccer player bios where the players only play in a semi-professional league). That's not the case here and editors have stated that each article should be judged individually on its own merits. Closed, but individual AFDs for the applicable articles may be opened. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Party[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These state parties are not notable. Suggest merge to List of state Green Parties in the United States. Many also have few to no sources. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated articles:

Mountain Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Party of Alaska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Party of Colorado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Party of Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
D.C. Statehood Green Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hawaii Green Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Party of Idaho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iowa Green Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kansas Green Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Party of Louisiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Party of New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North Carolina Green Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Party of Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Party of Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Party of Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Party of Rhode Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South Carolina Green Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Party of Tennessee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Party of Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Party of Washington State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wisconsin Green Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close an entirely improper way to discuss the merits of each party's notability. Nominate them individually. Unless your point is that non-state level political parties are not notable, it is impossible discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namiba (talk • contribs)

Nominations of multiple articles with a similar theme or topc are done all the time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is quite a messy mass-nomination. Some of the articles included have enough reliable sources to pass GNG, some don't. There's no way for anyone to give a definitive vote either way. I suggest a speedy close of this. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close This is quite a mess as the nominator has already merged content into the main article. Suggesting a mass undo of those and if desired to discuss and then renominate any significantly non-notable article. I would oppose quite a few of the above articles for deletion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speed close/oppose Way too many articles grouped together to have a cogent discussion. I would in particular oppose the deletion of Mountain Party, which has its own history separate from its more recent affiliation with the Green Party. Bitmapped (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schtig & Gorilla[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of meeting WP:BAND and no significant coverage. Their first album "should be out in 2016" but apparently is not. Created by WP:SPA, no incoming links. WP:TOOSOON at best. GregorB (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Their presidential bid got some coverage but that's just a gimmick ONEVENT. No article in the Croatian wikipedia and no other substantial coverage that I could find. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Miss University Nigeria[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed to meet WP:GNG. The article did not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There is no in line citations and the references cited were mostly primary sources or page not found, no in-depth coverage of the pageant (just by passing), and taken from web forum. Richie Campbell (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This pageant fails WP:GNG and has not been discussed in reliable independent sources. The references in the article do not support the article's content. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources to demonstrate notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izukiviktor (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Sigma Xi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~I cannot fathom how a local chapter of a fraternal organization could be notable. BRANCH applies.~~ I stand corrected, but it is highly doubtful that a social organization that is at one single university will ever meet ORG. At best, if this organization becomes a national organization, it may someday be notable. As of now, TOOSOON. John from Idegon (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a local chapter of another fraternal organization, it is its own independently founded organization on a campus that did not have any Greek Life previously Erin Pantone (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)— Erin Pantone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

After reviewing, it looks like BRANCH does not apply because it doesn't seem to be a sub-organization of a larger organization. Awhirlwind (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)— Awhirlwind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The rule of thumb is that single-chapter Greek-letter organizations are not notable. I don't see anything to make this an exception. I also don't see substantial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The question of whether this is a branch of a national organization or a standalone local entity is not as definitive in this instance as the total lack of any reliable source coverage independent of the organization's own self-published web presence. The "referencing" here is entirely to the sorority's own webpage about itself and its own social networking profile on Facebook, except for one article in the university's student newspaper — a source which is not widely distributed enough, or archived anywhere that Wikipedia could retrieve the content again if the weblink dies, to count for anything toward WP:GNG. But that's not how an organization gets a Wikipedia article, regardless of where it falls on the "national branch vs. standalone" scale: the key to getting a Wikipedia article is reliable source coverage in general market media on the order of daily newspapers and/or national news organizations (i.e. CBC/Global/CTV/Canadian Press), of which none has been shown here and no evidence of adequate coverage is turning up on Google either. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Collect My Love[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG no sources except itunes. Domdeparis (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for exactly the same reasons:[reply]

Redirect: These should all be redirect to the album article: 55 (album). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that would be a solution as the album seems notable with the links you have provided. Domdeparis (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Atlantic306 (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete, I for one did not create this page, but this is a new important song article, and still has many more edits on its way.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demarco200415 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

55 (album)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the album fails the WP:NALBUM the 2 sources cited are interviews that mention the album in passing as being a future album. Domdeparis (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG: Allmusic, Spin, Sputnik, Billboard (one of the songs on the album charted), Rolling Stone, Popjustice, HuffPost (re: 55.5 EP), etc. Yes, the article needs sourcing improvements, but notability is not the issue here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I still believe the album deserves a standalone article, but the current version has tons of unsourced material. I would be fine with stripping this article down to its bare bones, so keeping the stub for future expansion. There are several articles about songs on the album, which should probably be redirected to the album article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a shame that the author of the page couldn't be bothered to source his material. He has created lots of pages sourced only to itunes for songs from this album in which he makes no claims to notability not even bothering to mention the charts that they were in (obviously that is an indication that the song might be notable but not enough to guarantee it). I agree for the redirects though. Domdeparis (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Another Believer's sources. I'll warn the article creator to stop making such sloppy articles though. Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mingma Sherpa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliabe third party sources to support a credible claim of significance; fails WP:GNG. No mentions in independantly published sources; no charted songs; no major tours; no major awards (only a nomination, not receipt, for a local award). Only sources referencing him are You Tube, Facebook, blogs, download platforms, fan sites, wikis, and so on. Fails WP:MUSICBIO O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failed to find much coverage, a quick mention in this Himalayan article [5]. Yvarta (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archery at the 2016 ASEAN University Games[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable event, fails WP:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Also adding the following for the same reasons:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same rationale as the previous discussions: Low quality pages that just reproduce race results from either unstated source or low quality source. Non-encyclopedic content that is indiscriminate and no hope of ever being turned into an actual article with context and explanation. This is the definition of pure trivia that is best left for other websites. FuriouslySerene (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Events not at elite level (school level particularly) are generally not notable and certainly not in these cases. Ajf773 (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2016 ASEAN University Games, which meets GNG as has multiple independent coverage. Results are relevant facts to store at that location. SFB 00:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Additionally, I note that the content consisted of unsourced, contentious statements about a living individual, and should not be restored without citations to reliable sources per WP:BLP. Mz7 (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U/chadpc[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted as it is WP:OR as there are no reliable published sources this could be attributed to. The article also fails WP:GNG because it has no "significant coverage" in reliable sources independent of the subject. A WP:BEFORE search revealed no reliable sources for this topic. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 16:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A7 candidate with no credible claim of significance. A search for "U/chadpc" returns nothing reliable, and subject fails WP:BASIC; delete per WP:DEL8. — Sam Sailor 17:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 17:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 17:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding any coverage in reliable sources; does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Sam Sailor that this is a speedy delete candidate. PK T(alk) 17:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article should not have required relisting. There are no credible claims of significance, no reliable verification, and it strains BLP guidelines to remain unsourced while propagating notions of Mexican bias.--John Cline (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged U/chadpc for speedy deletion under WP:A7 -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 17:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asgar Ali Chowdhury Mosque[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged by WikiDan61 as unreferenced when it was created in February 2016. Author has continued to tinker with it, but has never added a source. Searches of the usual Google types, De Gruyter, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, ProQuest, and nine national newspapers in Bangladesh, found a single mention, in an article by a master's student in IJSER, a journal on Beall's list of "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals."[6] The article is about the acoustics of the mosque built in 2015 to replace this one, but does contain two sentences about the old mosque. It does not cite a source for those sentences, but thanks the Asgar Ali Chowdhury Jame Moshjid committee.[7]

If the community considers this a reliable source, I have no objection to merging what it supports (which isn't much of the stub) to the "Places" section of Halishahar Thana. In any case it is not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, so the topic does not meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT and should not be a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - google maps has it as Chowdhury Para Mosjid [8] (based on picture and map in IJSER paper). I would generally be for keeping articles on mosques if they pass even a generous reading of GNG or WP:GEOFEAT, but I don't find anything in this case. Smmurphy^(Talk) 10:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a mention in a crowdsourced website. Not sure how reliable it is, but it seems like the same mosque. But I haven't been able to find a single reliable source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even assuming it's all true, there are no reliable sources that it it exists except for Google maps. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wassim Rasamny[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious vanity piece, without a single actual source (although the reference list looks impressive at first glance, every "source" is actually to his own website or that of his companies, other than this one which just names him in passing as one of the organisers of an auction. ‑ Iridescent 15:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. I don't really understand wht my csd was removed; it's a textbook example of a vanity article.TheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. I would also like to add that this article does not pass the WP:GNG criteria because there is no "significant coverage" of this subject from reliable and independent sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 15:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. References are junk. Easily fails WP:GNG. David.moreno72 10:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have usually deleted articles about producers and investors. There's nothing in the article to suggest that the subject is anything more than a run of the mill business person. We are a charity and not a webhost for businesses. In fact, charities such as Hostelling International-Canada have lost charity status due to hosting for profit. Bearian (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfunder.co.uk[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable crowdfunding startup, no claim to notability. GoldenRing (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing remarkable, nothing notable. It's just another crowd-funding business - Wikipedia isn't a directory. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd say at the moment it fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY. There is not enough coverage and such coverage has does not have significant WP:DEPTH. Most coverage is from the source "Crowdfund Insider" which I view with less weight given the close association of sources. Other than that, there is [9] and passing mention at [10] & [11] - not enough to swing me. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 15:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All references are from the site itself and not reliable sources, meaning that the sources aren't independent. There really need to be independent sources covering it if it were to be notable. --Rlin8 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems suspicious and has many hallmarks of WP:PAID. Copyvio material and very promotional from an WP:SPA. The article clearly doesn't meet our notability guidelines for organizations nor does it have enough significant coverage for inclusion. Mkdw ^talk 05:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability and it seems thr author has a COI. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revation Communicator[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails GNG and NPRODUCT. See also related discussion on the article talk page and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revation Systems. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 16:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the sources provide I mostly see trivial mention of Revation Systems and little about their product. Searching for "Revation Communicator" I find no in-depth sources that could make this pass WP:NPRODUCT. — Sam Sailor 16:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising and the one source is simply trivial, making the presumption there simply must not be better since this is PR to begin with. SwisterTwister talk
Delete same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revation Systems. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revation LinkLive[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails GNG and NPRODUCT. See also related discussion on the article talk page and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revation Systems. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't actually find any sources talking about this system, with the exception of some press releases ([12], [13], [14]). I don't think the system will get more notable in the future, either. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revation Systems. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Minimal discussion, but looking at the article, it seems unlikely that a relist would produce any other result. Calling this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Residual Working Capacity (RWC)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a search i could find very little backing this up as a recognised term as per the article with the exception of the different papers written by the person having the same name as the author of this article. From what I could find it mostly refers to the state of insurance claimants after an accident to assess their degree of handicap. I could find no references in the case of handicaps that limited it to persons overs the age of 60. Domdeparis (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism. The phrase has a few different meanings according to google, but there are insufficient sources to back up this specific meaning. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punyal clan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Part of the Jat clans category. Not a notable topic. Just a couple lines with one reference, clan is not worth an article, fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; clear GNG failure Spiderone 21:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's possible that sources exist online or in another language, but I could not find any online sources in English. Even if the coverage in Handbook for the Indian Army Dogras is substantial, the GNG requires more than one source. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dagur clan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Part of the Jat clans category. Not a notable topic. Just a couple lines with two references, clan is not worth an article, fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG Spiderone 21:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess, it's hard to check for sources since there are lots of spellings of this and there are definitely sources for Dogar, which appears to be a caste. If we delete this we should delete Dagar as well. Anyway as far as I can tell in 1904 the Dagar had only 2,065 people, unless their numbers have increased they are unlikely to be notable. All the mentions I can find are just lists of clans with no significant coverage. There is always the possibility, though, of offline or foreign-language sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not demonstrate notability by WP:GNG. A quick Google search in English brings up few, if any, relevant results; scarce information in Hindi as well. Mélencron (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~A similar AFD regarding Dagar was closed as no consensus. As an aside, Dagur clan is almost a complete duplication of Dagar. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)~~ Dagar has been converted to a DAB. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Dagar is a perfectly valid disambiguation page, as one can see in this revision of it. But Primefac is hell-bent to get it deleted. I am still trying to engage them in discussion, as you can see at Talk:Dagar. But they are just interested in edit-warring. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NitinMlk, if you read through that AFD you'll find that I rescinded my !vote and have made no claims (either here or there) about the suitability of this topic for inclusion on Wikipedia. Kindly do not put words in my mouth or misrepresent my actions. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are repetitively converting Dagar into a clan article without proving the notability of the clan. As I expained to you at Talk:Dagar, either prove that the clan is the primary topic or just self-revert your this edit. Thanks - NitinMlk (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even understand disambiguation or consensus? Closing editor of this AfD must see the shocking edits at Dagar by Primefac. They changed it from this version to this one, without developing consensus. Please also see Talk:Dagar & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagar. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NitinMlk, you really need to calm down. You got what you wanted, so stop bitching. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that whatever you did was in good faith. And I apologize for hurting your emotions. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 13:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Sureshkumar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E: The subject is only notable for single event and I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know whats the problem ? (Kalyan.cp (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here ! Respond my messege. the article cited with reliable sources such as indian express, chronicle, NDTV etc. why you wre add a deletion tag on it (Kalyan.cp (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regretfully – pretty much the textbook definition of BLP1E as far as I can see. Laurdecl ^talk 14:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One Event does not establish notability, no matter how much coverage that single event receives. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as 1E isn't the actual concern here, it's self-advertising given this is clear autobiography and the templates are being removed, thus unsuitable here. SwisterTwister talk 15:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have usually deleted articles about business persons. There's nothing in the article to suggest that the subject is anything more than a run of the mill business person. We are a charity and not a webhost for businesses. In fact, charities such as Hostelling International-Canada have lost charity status due to hosting for profit. Bearian (talk) P.S. Every person gets 15 minutes of fame locally. That's what BLP1E means. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable security industry person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem on it ?? I think It's good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.20.49 (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salting can be asked for at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fan World[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fan event, search shows little to no coverage from reliable third party sources. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON as the first con was only held a few months ago. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deleted under G11 but recreated 10 minutes later. Proposed for deletion, but WP:CONTESTED by creator. On nom's talk page they indicate they are writing on behalf of an unspecified entity. Searching for "Fan World" Niagara I find nothing that suggests this new event inaugurated in 2016 would meet WP:NEVENT even if anyone without a COI would be willing to rewrite this G11 candidate. Delete per WP:DEL8 at least. — Sam Sailor 14:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 14:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 14:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be notable and in many ways appears suspicious. Strikes me as an "adverticle". SephyTheThird (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEVENT to meet notability. Here's a review of the 2016 event. [15] Notice Niagara Falls Comic Con, which had local news coverage [16] , doesn't even have an article yet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It does appear to have had some (minor?) coverage in a number of sources online but the article at its current state is far too promotional. At best, this could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Delete per WP:N, and salt due to the fact that this article was recreated 10 minutes after it was last deleted. This may seem heavy handed but if/when the article becomes notable it can always be undone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by Samtar (G4). (non-admin closure). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idubbbztv[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable YouTube personality. Previous AfD discussion. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput Barsar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Previously deleted via PROD and no apparent reliable sources, merely unreliable caste-affiliated histories etc Sitush (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL8; a search for "Rajput Basar" returns no sources at all. Could it be a hoax? — Sam Sailor 16:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 16:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 16:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definite GNG failure; possible hoax as stated Spiderone 21:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is Jaswit Barsar referring to Jaswant Singh of Marwar? In any case, I don't find anything under this name. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Needs editing to take a more encyclopaedic tone but newer sources added since nomination strengthen the article.. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. Cyvette M. Gibson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO, as the sources in the article are only trivial mentions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 18:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google news gives a number of in-depth stories [17], and she is the first female mayor of a city, Paynesville, which is, by population, the second largest city in Liberia (although its status as a suburb of the largest means it is not included in Liberia#Largest cities). Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many of the citations Smmurphy points to look WP:ROUTINE to me as the subject is ordinary. Some of the coverage is glowing which also looks like the mayor's office had a hand in guiding those outlets. The subject fails NPOL although somehow editors will tell you a suburb is significant enough. There is still no evidence that the subject was ever elected, as references only indicate she was appointed as acting mayor. I also don't buy this argument of being a young female in a profession deserves a political carve-out as we could pick any minority to claim that they're the first to do something. This article, created by the subject as an autobiography, has been an abomination as one editor after another tries to massage it into a perfect promotional piece. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Searching for "Cyvette Gibson" without the initials yielded more fruitful sources. Lexis search found 23 (4-5 where she was main topic of multiple paragraphs) and Newsbank with better African coverage had 127 sources. (Two false hits in Newsbank.) This includes mentions in The Guardian, The Star (prominent South African newspaper), APA News, and local sources (and CNBC Africa where she's been interviewed multiple times). While most of the local sources certainly run afoul of routine (e.g. "Paynesville Municipal City Council Holds Annual Health Fair"), the global and regional coverage surely passes muster for GNG. Not even really close. (By the way, Chris, mayors aren't elected in Liberia. But NPOL or WP:POLOUTCOMES don't require election for notability. Regardless, she passes GNG). AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing GNG proven in those sources. Yes, I guess it doesn't matter for purposes of NPOL; she still fails. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search for:
"C. Cyvette M. Gibson"

In books/documents
Google Books Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Free English newspaper archives

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal The Wikipedia Library Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

Advanced search for:
"Cyvette Gibson"

In books/documents
Google Books Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Free English newspaper archives

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal The Wikipedia Library Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep Sources listed in the article satisfy WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks to me as though her Ebola-fighting efforts have got plenty of coverage in reliable sources - just enough coverage to make her notable imo. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we base these by WP:POLITICIAN as that's the field here and none of this is convincing because it's too trivial and there's nothing suggesting better beyond, which is how this would've been kept. As such, there's also no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone, something we've commonly used at AfD. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Xtreme Competition 2009[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a one time non-notable event. I do not see any significant coverage about it and no sustained coverage later either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Florida Smash HLS[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:NGO, which is the applicable notability guideline for non-profit organizations. NGO requires reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. All available sourcing comes from South Florida. I've looked myself for national sources, and did not find any: I've gone through the first ten pages of Google results, and found nothing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources available indicate notability for such an organization. As mentioned by the nom, coverage outside the local area would be needed to address this and begin developing content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per the history i removed fraudulent and promotional content from the article. All the refs are local papers, so WP:AUD is relevant here. The refs from the local paper do provide in-depth coverage but there are no sources with broader geographic coverage, so this fails WP:AUD. So... notability is marginal at best and the obvious effort to use WP to promote the group pushes my !vote solidly to delete. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of retailers on the Magnificent Mile[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOR. Completely unencyclopedic list article that serves no other purpose other than a retail directory Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - Wikipedia isn't a directory! Exemplo347 (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIRECTORY. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 19:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is probably even too much detail on this subject in the general Magnificent Mile article that I created when I was an inexperienced editor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice picture but, yeah, Wikipedia is not a directory. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blackie Dammett[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable bit-part actor. His biography is self-published and his role with the RHCP fanclub is trivial. Notability is not inherited. Unsourced BLP issues. Karst (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an actor in minor roles, not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable actor, and WP:NOTINHERITED. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cadiff[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although the subject appears to have had some important roles in film and television production, a Google search on him only seems to return a series of trivial mentions and directory listings (LinkedIn, IMDb, Allmusic, Whitepages, etc.). I didn't see substantive coverage in independent reliable sources. KDS4444 (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources or "significant coverage". DrStrauss talk 09:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Doriss[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. A Google search turns up Whitepages, Intellius, and various mirrors/ offshoots of Wikipedia (revolvy, Wikidata, Wikivisually). If being principal oboist for a well-known symphony qualifies her as notable under some subject-specific guideline, then so be it, but otherwise I do not see enough substantive coverage in independent reliable sources to warrant a standalone article on her. KDS4444 (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: You are right, mere membership of an orchestra should not entitle a musician to an article. Syek88 (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sufficiently notable. She was mentioned in The Cape Cod Times as a local artist in a low-key choral concert, but I can otherwise find nothing about her online. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Mining Ltd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

please ignore the fact that it states 2nd nomination. The first one was by me just now, but encountered technical issues and was not completed satisfactorily so removed and resubmitted, resulting in the '2nd' tag being applied.

I may need some assistance in here - I cannot find some of the pages relevant to this discussion - the previous deletion discussion and the subsequent prevention of creation of an article under the normal title 'Genesis Mining' - I discovered this when trying to move the page to this and drop the 'Ltd' from the title. I cannot now find these pages. This page has been resurrected surreptitiously by a COI/SPA (with a total of 1 contribution) to sneakily bypass this deletion. The company does not have significant coverage - the only mentions in mainstream media, outside of the esoteric bitcoin discussion pages, centres around a headline-seeking PR stunt. I believe all the points raised in the initial AfD are still valid and this page should receive the same fate as its predecessor. I did try to CsD it but was told this wasn't the correct approach. Rayman60 (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this helps you, but according to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Genesis_Mining Genesis Mining was speedily deleted three times. It never went through a full AfD discussion. After the third deletion, that title was protected against further re-creation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, thanks. That was what I'd seen initially - I think by reading that log it justifies my reasoning that this new creation is nothing but subterfuge and warrants deletion. Plus all the usual wp:GNg reasons. Rayman60 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have fixed it and moved the AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per K.e.coffman. I did find discussion of the company on a bitcoin forum where it was being discussed as a possible scam - "Scam alert : Do NOT INVEST in Genesis Mining". I don't like the fact that the Wikipedia article appears to give it an "authencity" it may not deserve. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xenobi Studios[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This animation studio has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. There are no sources provided in the article. The only claim to notability would be that they put out one short that won a prize at the Rhode Island Film Festival. I can confirm that the claim is true from the festival's web site, but I can't find that that generated any coverage for this company. Whpq (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Nothing is here! Light2021 (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- A7 material which also manages to be spam. I requested a speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forefront.TV[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable "premium video content" website. Looks like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic article. Does not pass GNG. Delta13C (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Giving credence to Jytdog's comments, and to the additional comments provided by Delta, while I'm sustaining the statement made, I'm striking the Keep !vote. Lourdes 02:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)) ~~Keep~~ Satisfies WP:GNG. Significant reviews focused on forefront.tv like this in Variety and this in NewMediaRockstars cannot be ignored. If you don't mind, please do take my suggestion and check our notability guidelines and do a cursory check for sources before you nominate. Talk me up for any help you may need. Lourdes 04:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If those are the only sources available, then I do not think the subject passes GNG. I'm also concerned that New Media Rock Stars is not a reliable source. Delta13C (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Delta, GNG can be attained even with one source; the GNG guideline itself specifies that there is no actual number of sources specified, while multiple sources are preferred. Two sources do make multiple sources, although there are other sources too, like this one by Rap Basement (Rap Basement's been voted VH1's Best Hip-Hop Lifestyle Site)[18]). At the same time, allow me to enquire, why do you think the NewMediaRockStars source is unreliable? It's a site that is approached by the likes of The New York Times for inputs on web based news.[19] For information, there's one more source about Forefront.tv from the editor. Also, what are your views on WEBCRIT? Thanks. Lourdes 09:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG specifically mentions "sources," which implies that no single source can establish notability alone. Perhaps my hunch about New Media Rock Stars is nothing more than that, but it seems as though it is a moderately reliable source at best, and at worst a PR-vulnerable outlet. I think other opinions are needed here to sort out whether Forefront.tv meets GNG. My opinion is that is it too soon. Delta13C (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It's interesting that the GNG guidelines notes the following: "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." That's why I said that even a single source, for example the Variety source, is enough. In this particular case, we have four sources from three reliable outlets that cover the media company significantly. Thanks. Lourdes 14:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just do not see how a single 295-word article in Variety can establish notability alone. The other sources helps, but I don't see the amount of coverage I'd consider significant. Delta13C (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thankful that (1) You've considered my point about GNG being attainable on one source too, as per guidelines (2) You've also now perchance considered all the sources. As much as I see, the objection you have is that you feel the content within the multiple sources provided is not enough. I do disagree with the viewpoint (as I believe the coverage easily satisfies WEBCRIT); I'll await comments from other editors on their interpretation. Thanks. Lourdes 18:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:Golden rule and GNG which says topics need substantial discussion in multiple reliable sources. This article is sourced to a Vanity Fair blog posting and some trade rags. WP:TOOSOON and obviously promotional. (the last sentence is laughable: "Forefront is notable for their use of livestream, hangouts, meetups, tweet chats and other real time events to showcase their partners" Oh! They use social media!! How strange and exciting !!!!! blech.) Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big Frame[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable marketing organization. There are only two or three sources that could possibly count towards GNG. The numerous remaining are either blogs tied to the company or the company itself. The text and history appear to be promotional. Delta13C (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough reliable sources to meet GNG (certainly more than "two or three") and there only a handful of references that are primary sources. Article has a small amount of promotional writing but that's not a valid reason for deletion. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an entity with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH and most sources are PRIMARY and/or fail criteria in WP:RS. Even after editting the article to remove puffery and unnecessary detail, this article still fails. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to Draft:Modern Stoicism. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Stoicism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

original research, inventing a category for personal promotional use. no supporting third party sources Weathermandela (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It exists, and I just read a blog about it recently somewhere online, but I'm not sure if it is notable yet. Bearian (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reads like an essay on one person's views on Stoicism. There is contemporary Stoicism or current thinking on Stoicism, but I do not see evidence of a Modern Stoicism as a notable and separate school of thought. This seems little more (perhaps no more) than a vanity piece. At most, merge as a section in Stoicism. Jacknstock (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. Massimo Pigliucci's substantial (4 paragraph) coverage of "The Modern Stoicism movement" in the article on Stoicism on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy demonstrates that the movement is significant. In turn, the IEP cites Viktor Frankl's logotherapy in Sahakian 1979, so the modern movement is now over 30 years old. For philosophy, the IEP article cites William Irvine 2008, John Sellars 2003, and Lawrence Becker 1997. For self-help, the IEP cites Donald Robertson 2013. This is certainly over the Notability threshold.

Becker, L.C. (1997) A New Stoicism. Princeton University Press.
Irvine, W.B. (2008) A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy. Oxford University Press.
Sahakian, W.S. (1979) "Logotherapy’s Place in Philosophy". In: Logotherapy in Action. J. Fabry, R. Bulka, and W.S. Sahakian (eds.), foreword by Viktor Frankl. Jason Aronson.
Sellars, J. (2003) The Art of Living: The Stoics on the Nature and Function of Philosophy. Ashgate.

The appropriate !vote is clearly Keep. I agree, of course, that the article is a mess of an essay, but that's a new editor's inexperience. The topic is notable, and AfD is not for cleanup. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a specialist encyclopedia has a section on Contemporary Stoicism, do you think that would be appropriate for WP? That would be merge. Jacknstock (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacknstock: I haven't understood your comment (sincerely). Do you mean there is already an article on Contemporary Stoicism (there isn't one)? What is your intended merge target? If there is something suitable I will happily change my !vote. If you mean that where there is a main article, there must never be any subsidiary (child, grandchild) articles, then look at any major topic, say Second World War: if a sub-topic is notable, then it may have an article to itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying there is already an article on Stoicism. Any commentary on current or recent thought on Stoicism belongs in that article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack N. Stock: Thank you. That however is not a reason for deleting or even merging, as suitably large subtopics such as Modern Stoicism, about which whole books have been written, can be notable in themselves and can therefore have their own articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Please see my comments on the original page's Talk page. Not only is this distinction invented, it was created as an attempt at advertising by the user "Stoic Warrior". Reviewing the user's talk page you find that a page created by the user previously was deleted. That page was "Stoic Week", which if you Google, is an event created and hosted by the website "modernstoicism.com" Further, other edits done by "Stoic Warrior" include promotional and soapboxing edits to pages related to this one, which were reverted a few weeks ago. Weathermandela (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Weathermandela: thankyou, I just took a look, but I wouldn't say your original comments affect the current situation much. Firstly, notability is a matter of whether sources exist, not whether the article as it currently stands (still less, once stood) is well-written or well-cited. A topic can be notable when the article brought to AfD is totally uncited and full of advertising, the questions are not connected: though as it happens, the article lists many reliable sources. I have identified 5 reliable sources above, so the notability of the topic is established, and the article, if need be, could be totally rewritten from them, avoiding any trace of WP:OR, and not relying at all on websites such as modernstoicism.com. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue also remains that this is all original research. There isn't a single credible third party media outlet that has used the phrase "modern stoicism" or any trend piece on the issue. The article is thousands of words and all from books. There isn't anywhere else that make this distinction between types of stoicism. It is trying to make a trend where there isn't one. Weathermandela (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the article on Stoicism on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is certainly a "credible third party media outlet". Wikipedia has no prejudice against books, indeed policy favours the use of "secondary sources" such as books and review papers over primary research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is one small mention that doesn't even justify a subsection in that one article, which is on one obscure website. There aren't other articles that make the distinction. If this was an argument about a sentence or two on the main stoicism article, that might be one thing. A 5,000 word entry cannot hinge on one mention in one article from the entirety of the Internet. Weathermandela (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about what is in the article, we are talking about what could be there, given the reliable sources that exist out there in the world. The IEP is a good honest source, and far more of the article could and no doubt should be cited to sources of that quality. All AfD discussions should be about the sources available, not the sources used. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Userfy or move to draft space. Google modern stoicism and there is definitely a conversation taking place in the media about this topic. Some examples: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/modern-day-stoicism/5896364, and http://www.forbes.com/sites/kareanderson/2012/09/28/five-reasons-why-stoicism-matters-today/#2b089a486b2b and https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/how-to-be-a-stoic/?_r=1. These discussions in Forbes, the New York Times and Australian media, etc, plus the books already cited, seem to indicate that the topic is notable. Yes, it does need rewriting, but there seems to be enough info on it to merit its own article, instead of trying to cram it all into the Stoicism article. ABF99 (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Having looked more closely at the article and its talk page, where the writer says he/she will bring it up to Wiki standards by late January, I'm changing my !vote to give him/her more time to improve it. ABF99 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that these articles are about Stoicism, not "modern Stoicism" as a distinctly separate philosophical school. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book Becker, L.C. (1997) A New Stoicism and the serious discussion of modern Stoicism in the IEP article are certainly about the modern variety. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That there is a revival of Stoicism in the 21st century, and that differences are being discussed between the new and old versions in reliable sources, certainly warrants being included in an encyclopedia. I agree that this discussion could have been written into the original Stoicism article, but it wasn't. We have a potential article here that is well-researched but needs more time for development. I have changed my !vote to userfy or move to draft space so it can be worked on outside of mainspace. ABF99 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Another article from a UK research center that discusses Modern Stoicism: https://emotionsblog.history.qmul.ac.uk/2015/11/the-big-messy-tent-of-modern-stoicism/. ABF99 (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles mentioned above don't distinctly differentiate a new train of thought or "modern stoicism" that is different than "stoicism", they're merely talking about stoicism being used in modern times.Weathermandela (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space. If there are sources there's no reason we can't have an article on modern Stoicism, just as we have Modern Paganism and neostoicism for the Renaissance movement. The concerns on the talk page are valid though, so lets make this a draft so Stoic Warrior can address them. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Ocean[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NVG, as it lacks reliable reviews. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 18:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a review from BrashGames http://www.brashgames.co.uk/2016/12/10/even-the-ocean-review/ . Though it is not a explicit review, the Waypoint interview with the developers looks like a positive endorsement: https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/article/even-the-ocean-is-a-thoughtful-politically-aware-platformer . I have seen scattered reviews written from smaller blogs. The Steam page also has forty-something reviews. These don't count on Metacritic scores, but I would classify them as reliable. Oceanblue44444 (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found some other reviews. A site: https://femhype.com/2016/12/21/even-the-ocean-offers-a-message-of-hope/ , http://thumbthrone.com/games/use-light-and-darkness-to-overcome-obstacles-in-the-story-driven-even-the-ocean/ . A review blog: https://grindingdown.wordpress.com/2016/11/22/in-even-the-ocean-an-unassuming-power-plant-technician-rises-up/ Oceanblue44444 (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of Waypoint, those reviews are not reliable. Please see the video game reliable sources page and related custom Google search. czar 06:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- BrashGames has an editor-in-chief, while small, it looks reliable: http://www.brashgames.co.uk/about/ . Killscreen has two positive and smaller reviews about the game: https://killscreen.com/playlist/even-the-ocean/ , https://killscreen.com/articles/even-ocean-wants-find-balance-life-next-week/ . I would also like to argue that there are indie games we should keep on Wikipedia, but a fixed amount of space on the reliable news sites, which often goes to AAA games - therefore by solely using these reliable sites as criteria, Wikipedia will not be comprehensively keeping track of indie games. Has Wikipedia considered other metrics such as presence on Steam? Oceanblue44444 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to also mention of the (possibly not relevant) historical value of having this studio's 2nd game on Wikipedia. Their first, Anodyne, was allowed to remain an article. Oceanblue44444 (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  @Oceanblue44444: We are not here to right the great wrong that is indie game coverage. Regarding Steam, that's a primary source (if not a dependent source, vice independent), which does not help establish notability for a topic. Regarding Brashgames, I might suggest requesting feedback on that site at WT:VG/RS (I can't review it at work and that gets it into other person's queues). It may also be useful aside from this article too. --Izno (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The WP:VG/S RS search engine pops up several reliable sources. @Czar: You look like you're just making the comment that you think there are better sources available (since I assume you used the engine). Is that the case? --Izno (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, two points. First, that what constitutes "reliable" is explained on that page, if the editor is interested. Two, that there is indeed coverage, but it's mostly announcements. This game hasn't been reviewed (even in brief) despite releasing in November, which is a sign that it's not notable. At least the Vice article covers its development, though. czar 17:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed—a bunch of announcements, but I think there's enough meat in there to indicate notability. --Izno (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enough that we could write something about it, but I don't see enough sources (namely reviews) to cover the topic in adequate depth. I'd suggest putting it in draftspace as a compromise. It's super promotional as written and would need more than just announcements to justify a separate article czar 00:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While Oceanblue's sources are not convincing, Izno's are. Its not a ton, but its enough to reach the minimum the bar set by the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE seeing the low participation despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Woelfel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable movie director/writer of low-budget direct-to-video independent films. No significant coverage in WP:RS. Article apparently created by producing partner. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not translated in a timely manner. Request at WP:REFUND if you are interested in translating the material. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

قرى وادي الصعاليك[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not in English. Unreferenced in the original. The original will not be verifiable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Is not in English and therefore does not belong on English language version of Wikipedia. Circumspect (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no speedy deletion provision for articles to be deleted because they aren't in English. The procedures for handling such articles are at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Largoplazo (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and let the normal process at WP:PNT for pages not in English run its course. Having no references isn't grounds for deletion; the solution is to add them. As for the original not being verifiable, I don't see why an article about a portion of Qilwah Province in the Al Bahah Region of Saudi Arabia would be unverifiable. Largoplazo (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep !Vote on hold. Try again after the WP:PNT grace period is over, i.e. after 21 January. And why will the original not be verifiable? Just because you cannot read it? --HyperGaruda (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep sounds like the correct thing to do. I personally have not seen an article like this show up at AFD before. --do ncr am 06:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest a relist of this AFD (instead of closing it). 21 Jan is like 8 days. If someone can improve then well and good. Otherwise, we can delete this. There is no point in closing this AFD and starting another in 8 days. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lemongirl here, provided that the AfD is extended to 28 January, i.e. 14 days post-PNT listing + 7 days of PROD/AfD. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply for not being in English and being an unlikely seearch term for an English reader. Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not being in English is actually not a reason for deletion, it's a reason for Page Translation.Procedural Keep and Close.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Treat as WP:WRONGFORUM and reopen any time if there are issues with the translated version. NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 12:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Time's up for this PNT entry, which has still not been translated into English. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Considering the low number of participants, a future nomination might be warranted if users strongly feel that the subject fails to be independently notable. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 13:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art Tripp[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not independently notable from Frank Zappa. There is a paucity of sources to verify existing content and expand to a suitable article. Fails WP:Music and GNG. Delta13C (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frank Zappa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Redirect to the Frank Zappa page would be inappropriate as Tripp is at least as well known as a member of Captain Beefheart's Magic Band (appearing on 5 LPs across 8 years and extensive touring) and subsequently less successfully as a member of Mallard (band). His involvement in two prominent groups is indicative of WP:MUSICBIO #6. As to the article sources, it is definitely short on inline references but does have a list of book sources. From a quick check back to a couple of these, Barnes' book could provide inline verifications of various facts; other sources such as Harkleroad less so. AllyD (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important member of the Mothers, the Magic Band, and Mallard, who also played with the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra and in Tim Buckley's band. We may not be able to source everything currently in the article, but Tripp is notable enough. --Michig (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Einar Kuusk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of passing WP:NBIO, as the sources in the article are unreliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is quite well-known in Estonia, initially as a comedian. He is now an actor in films. He has write ups (better references/sources) in some of the major Estonian newspapers, such as Õhtuleht and Postimees; here, here, and here for example. His Wiki page relies far too much on things like imdb and Twitter. But, there are better sources for him out there. ExRat (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has appeared in a (small) number of films, and has been mentioned in independent sources. Inwind (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Shamshad[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another puff piece article. Fails WP:BIO. Refs are all trade papers. scope_creep (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have as yet no opinion about notability, but must point out that the statement that "refs are all trade papers" is blatantly untrue. Two of the sources cited are national non-trade newspapers. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or cut down on the lede, which reads like a resume.74.70.146.1 (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are too meager. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softvision[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:CORP. References consist of two passing mentions, and I can't find anything online from WP:RS to supplement them: please note that there are several unrelated companies listed online with the same name, but this one only produced training videos. Wikishovel (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly corporate spam on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Light2021 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Zakarin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG / WP:BIO. Contested PROD in 2013, no substantial article improvement or developments since then. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milad Seif[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. Six singles in three different publishers. Very early days. Perhaps in 2 or 3 years. scope_creep (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's 100 metre breaststroke[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable sports event and violates WP:Sports event. Was not included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 100 metre freestyle. JTtheOG (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why can't we just add this to the other afd? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable sports event, so I will go with a delete here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 02:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W. R. Moses[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable poet. I find no biographies of him at all and even his Goodreads page suggests no-one cares... The references in the article either link to his poetry or simply prove that he existed without establishing notability. — Iadmc ♫^talk 05:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator—Article has been substantially expanded and is now liberally referenced with reliable sources which clearly establish notability. I was unable to find such sources when I made the nomination and as stated below notability for poets is always difficult to assess. 4 keeps (one provisional) and considerable expansion to establish notability is a clear case of The Heymann Standard. Thank you to those who contributed — Iadmc ♫^talk 23:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, reviews of an author's work in scholarly journals and general circulation periodicals show far more than that a writer "existed". They establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't there when I made the nom. That and the fact I couldn't find them were exactly why I couldn't establish notability. I am presently reading all I am able to by the various independent sources now cited in the article so bear with me, please — Iadmc ♫^talk 23:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-known 20th cen American poet. I have added a a book about him and 4 other poets by Paul Goodman I also added a review of 1 of Moses' books, other reviews of his books are easy to find by clicking JSTOR on tool bar above. Suggest Nom withdraw this obvious keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The book you added (Five Young American Poets) was a compilation of his and other's poetry not a review and is already in the article. — Iadmc ♫^talk 13:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My error.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Jstor: "No results found" — Iadmc ♫^talk 13:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR shows 6 reviews of his work, [20] on search of: W.R.Moses, 15 hits [21] on search of "W.R. Moses" - with a space.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And when I click JSTOR on the toolbar at the top of this page, I get 185 hits. all appear to be this W.R., they include reviews and front matter but appear overwhelmingly to link to his poems as published by literary magazines.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I click the JSTOR links you give that you say yielded 6 and 15 hits, it tells me 0 hits. Largoplazo (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN. I did a quick, minor, expand/source of this article on a prima facie notable poet brought here by an editor who suffers from a severe case of the endemic Wikipedia's WP:SYSTEMIC bias, recentism. A disease brought on by the failure simple, quick searches to instantly discover notability for individuals like Moses whose careers took place in the ancient period (in this case, the mid-20th century). Lots more sources exist on this poet whose books were reviewed in obscure periodicals including the Washington Post, Hartford Courant, and New York Times. End of rant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as per, WP:BITE this highly plausible article, even when I came upon it, was the first article of a editor who has made a mere handful of edits over several years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please be civil. I brought this here in good faith as I could not find anything on this poet in any of the usual outlets. Your links to Jstor yield zero results for me (and Largoplazo, above). I even joined to see if that would help. No. The only time I do get results is without quotes, and then the articles yielded are about Moses. I still cannot find any sources. Highbeam gives three links but I don't know how significant they are as I am not a member. Scholar gives a load of stuff on medicine. You seem to have magicked a few up. Perhaps because you are in the US and I'm in the UK? If there is any bias in me, that is the only source of it. My usual interests include Classical music, the Greek myths and Classic literature, etc... hardly "recentist". (You may also wish to review my user boxes.) Please continue to expand the article from all the sources you have found and we'll let other people decide. Three people commenting, two of whom cannot source the still embryonic article, is hardly HEY, yet. Finally, I had no idea what the status of the editor who created the article was: I made my assessment on my complete failure to confirm notability. BTW, how do I join ProQuest? — Iadmc ♫^talk 16:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Now I've joined Jstor, I can read the Harriet Zinnes review (of Moses and another) and it hardly supports notability: "Both poets are producing... poems of lassitude and of strange lackluster. ... Poets are so tired, so tired." I can only find Moses' poetry otherwise but I'll keep looking — Iadmc ♫^talk

Even very simple gsearch on "W.C.Moses + poet produces this non-paywalled, dispositive page of links: [22].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through to page 10 and found no more third party sources than those we have. The vast majority is W.R. Moses' poetry, his articles and writings, or his editorship on journals. BTW, the last paragraph of Biography is wrong: Monson was talking about browsing Moses' library and finding the Collected Poems of Edwin Arlington Robinson not a work of Moses: Chapter "Uses of Biography" in Letter to a Future Lover: Marginalia... by Ander Monson — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Discussion at article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reference to Harriet Zinnes does not mention her own status, which is not as a major poet. A major poet, a member of the Fugitives, did comment on Moses, as found in the Wiki article itself. I quote: "His poem 'Further Document on the Human Brain' [9] was commented on by poet Allen Tate in Trial Balances: An Anthology Of New Poetry.[10] Tate states that 'the feature of Moses’ work that most forcibly strikes' him is 'the conscious control of his material.' He notices the juxtaposition of that control with its 'shock of immediacy'." These lines in "Boy at Target Practice" do not lack luster nor are they tired: "Each time greenbones, you pressed the neat trigger/you punched a new horizontal into the air." The use of "authorities" should be approached with caution.Altj1 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)altj1[reply]
- I agree. We do need more third party sources however. I hope I didn't offend you by PRODding then AfDing this? I genuinely could not find anything on him and had never heard of him. Good poet, though I must say — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iadmc, can you lay out the standard of notability that you are judging this poet by? I had never heard of him either, until happening on this AFD. But, to me, and I edit writers at AFD regularly, the article looked like an obvious keep tome when you nominated it. I added a few sources, then more so that the article is now sourced to more than enough WP:RS to pass our ordinary standards of notability for writers. WP:AUTHOR #3:"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work.... such work must have been the primary subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." note that reviews of Moses' poetry books already on the page include major daily newspapers and major literary journals. Perhaps you are not familiar with Wikipedia:Notability (people)?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, it is a truism that most articles at WP "need more third party sources". We do not, however, delete because an article could be improved by better sourcing. At AFD the question at issue is: Whether the topic is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My criteria are those found at WP:GNG as elucidated by WP:BIO; my nomination, as outlined above, was based on this version which I felt hadn't addressed the issues I'd raised in the PROD four-and-a-half days earlier (edit redacted per copyvio). My nomination was made after two days of inactivity in the article. More specifically, I could not find any secondary sources per, WP:PSTS, (whether WP:RS or not) and those in the article didn't seem to back up claims of notability. Anybody can contribute to a notable journal if they happen to write a few half decent poems that meet that journal's wishlist. Many journals publish any old bod's poems, for that matter, in Readers Poetry or such like. Also, the phrase "Self-description in..." rang alarm bells and just because even a couple of notable fellow poets say they like someone's work as "distinct" and having "conscious control of [the] material" doesn't ensure that they are going to be well received by anyone else or even remembered. Plenty now forgotten have had similar accolades. I could write plenty more, but tl;dr... — Iadmc ♫^talk 21:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is untrue that "Many journals publish any old bod's poems." (There are, of course, print-for-pay journals that do so) Journals like The New Yorker - which published Moses repeatedly - do not "publish any old bod's poems."E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant newspapers. The British press do. Even the broadsheets — Iadmc ♫^talk 22:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, to cite an old version, click "view history" in the toolbar, then click the date your want to look at. In this case here:[23] is the article as it stood when you nominated it for deletion. note however that notability is not asessed by the condition of an article as it stands, but,rather, by the quesiton of whether sources exist in the universe to verify facts and support notability. Other editors should note that the article has undergone an extensive WP:HEYMANN. For may part, I am attempting to understand why you continue to argue about this article. Are you aware that Nominating editors simply wirte that they have changed their opinion when another editor brings sources, or points to a policy that justifies KEEP? It is not at all dishonourable to realize that you erred, or that you changed your mind after being shown a policy or additional sources. It happens all the time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not entirely convinced and I'd really like the opinion of more than you, me and the creator and one other minor comment. — Iadmc ♫^talk 00:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you think that this poet does not meet WP:BIO #3.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK:

2 peers saying they like his work isn't being "widely cited".
The article doesn't claim he originated "a significant new concept, theory, or technique".
He may qualify for having "created... well-known work" that has "been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" but the article does not tell us what the various journals and newspapers say. They may say his work is rubbish and not worth the time and money reading for all I know as I can't actually access ProQuest to find out. (I know WP:PAYWALL, BTW: can you access those archives to find out what they do say?)
No claim his work has ".. (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention... (the other criteria don't apply, as he is not an architect or fine artist etc).

I think we should let this rest a while to see if others wish to contribute. You can still edit and if you are right it will be delisted in six days unless you convince me to withdraw. I'm warming but still need more to go on. Why do think it does meet WP:ARTIST? — Iadmc ♫^talk 22:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OF COURSE I have read the articles that I cite. Please refrain from slander.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't merely "think" that meeting WP:AUTHOR #3 suffices, I 'know that this is the way authors are routinely judged to pass WP:BIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not slandering you. I'm asking if can you please tell me what they say? — Iadmc ♫^talk 23:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your question, "can you access those archives to find out what they do say?" seemed to imply that I cited material that I had not read.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory: It was a request per "If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf". Sorry if it was ambiguous. The introduction to and the review of Five Young American Poets were pretty cool towards his poetry. Per your comment below this fact should be in the article. I will add it. You may yet be right but so far I just see a very minor poet who had a little success for a time — Iadmc ♫^talk 00:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you stated that you now have access to JSTOR? The Hartford Courant and Washington Post are reviews. Unfortunatelyly, they are photo images of newsprint, I cannot simply cut and paste them here. Perhaps I will type some of the text to the page (a tedious task.) But whether or not I do that, they do support notability, simply by existing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm asking how it meets #3 in your opinion. I know it needs to that's why I nom'ed it — Iadmc ♫^talk 23:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-pasting my statement above: WP:AUTHOR #3:"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work.... such work must have been the primary subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not, in fact, particularly matter whether they panned it or loved it; the point is that major literary journals and major big city newspapers considered his work important enough to assign reviews of several books as they were published over the years. The reviews themselves confer notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:AUTHOR #3, as well as meets WP:GNG. This article is well sourced at this point. In my view the nom should be withdrawn. Or if not, I am sure some more editors may stop by to leave their points. Antonioatrylia (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep. Notability of poets is always difficult to assess, but this may pass. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Nom withdraws Nom, User:Iadmc, an experienced editor who may not have previous experience at AFD, attempted to withdraw by removing the template form the page and typing "withdraw" in his edit note. here: [24]. A bot replaced the template. I assume that he acted in good faith in response to my suggestion above advising him that a Nom can withdraw (I have found that some Noms can be unaware that they can do this, sometimes responding to such advice in the words of King George as interpreted by the inimitable Lin Manuel Miranda, "I wasn't aware that was something a person could do." #Hamilton).E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Wuthrich[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Signed to CFL Edmonton Eskimos in 2009 but never made it off the practice squad. Released 2010. http://www.cfl.ca/2010/09/08/three-in-three-out-as-esks-make-roster-moves/ Then played for St Mary's University and wasn't signed pro after that as far as I can tell. So, since he never played a pro game he fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON. I found only WP:ROUTINE coverage of his college career, so fails WP:NCOLLATH. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG either. Meters (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable sportsman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see how this article passes WP:GNG or any other notability measure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I found the strongest arguments here those which engaged with the general notability guideline, the weakest those which failed to, expressed a subjective sent of notability, or referred to an inapplicable notability guideline. joe decker ^talk 02:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom of Finland stamps[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient notability independent of the artist featured (who is already the subject of an article, where this stamp set is covered). It's a fairly routine commemorative stamp set with no special philatelic significance, with only marginally more lasting notability than the countless other stamps issued worldwide every month. Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator per WP:GNG. The stamps were drawn by and commemorate a notable individual. Coverage is sufficient: BBC, HuffPost, Bustle, Slate, Forbes, The Guardian, V&A, WaPo, artnet (twice), Advocate, Independent, etc. I'd say the stamps being "considered to be the world's first depicting homoerotic art" does make them significant, but that's subjective. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Another Believer. Seems notable enough to merit an independent article from the artist Jupitus Smart 06:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Existence of coverage doesn't automatically establish notability. Stamps featuring the work of notable artists are commonplace[25][26][27], and those commemorating notable nationals of the issuing country are routine; they are not otherwise the subjects of articles, nor should they be. The coverage of this stamp set was brief and PR-driven (once when announced, again when released... and none at all since) and based entirely on the item's novelty. That would be a remarkably low standard for independent notability, also justifying separate articles about Astonishing X-Men #51 (Advocate Rolling Stone EW), the Harvey Milk stamp (WaPo HuffPo Blade), Star Trek: Gay XXX Parody (HuffPo Inverse Attitude), and any of countless other relatively minor items receiving fleeting attention (just to cite a few similar items that happen to be visible from where I'm sitting). None of Laaksonen's other (much more important) work apparently needs separate articles, why do these three stamps? It makes more sense to merge and cover this in the context of the artist's legacy. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While JasonAQuest makes valid points, based on my research (I just tripled the number of references in the article, and even so I see I missed at least two cited by Another Believer: ArtNet and The Independent) I find the coverage to be sufficiently extensive, and the points made in that coverage about the significance of the issue to go sufficiently beyond the clickbait factor (in particular the argument made by a stamps expert that it may be the first erotic stamp issue of any kind, and the call to have the stamps banned in Russia), that I agree that the topic meets GNG. (I should also note that recentism is an aspect of entrenched bias, and as such I would have liked to include non-English sources to further demonstrate notability and possibly add points, but I can't manage either Russian or Finnish, and in any case this article in Helsingin Sanomat appears to be paywalled.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason why a set of stamps wouldn't be notable by our standards if said set of stamps has received some coverage, and here it does. I must say I find the insistence on deletion/redirection of this topic a bit exaggerated. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the insistence on keeping this near-orphan, unprecedented, redundant overwrought stub difficult to understand. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That insistence derives from GNG. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - But WP:NOPAGE also argues that not everything with some coverage needs its own article (which is also my position here). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or merge: These stamps are no more notable than many thousands of others issued every year by countries around the world by well known artists. That is absolutely no reason to have an article of its own, especially when much of the content is duplicated in the artist's own article. Any missing information can be merged to there and the image may even qualify there under our non-free policy criteria as has happened previously for some stamps. There are many more well known artists whose stamps don't have stand-alone articles because the stamps themselves are not notable enough and can easily be mentioned in their biographies. Do have a look at some of the articles on List of postage stamps to see what some of the world's notable stamps comprise of. Even the world's highest production stamp, the 1993 Elvis Presley stamp, of which 500 million were sold and about 124 million of those we bought by collectors who won't even use them, has not got an article. There are many more worthy stamps than these for stand-alone article like some of the redlinks in the list above. ww2censor (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ww2censor, it seems to me that you better than anyone should see the opportunity to create a number of articles on topics that meet the GNG, including the Elvis stamp. Seriously, seize that moment, and I say this as a fellow stamp lover. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've enough other stuff to be doing and I do occasionally write stamp or other philatelic related articles, plus real life also intervenes. ww2censor (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - There doesn't appear to be much interest in creating articles for every stamp that gets some press coverage. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the "many thousands of others issued every year by countries around the world by well known artists" have received as much coverage of these Tom of Finland stamps, sounds like the encyclopedia has many gaps that need to be filled... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is plenty of in-depth coverage of these stamps as stamps which is not surprising given their nature. I don't find the coverage to be routine, there is explicit discussion of the controversial designs and whether they have any antecedents so that the subject easily meets the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How much of that coverage was more than a few weeks after the release of the stamps? They're notable in terms of what their issuance represents about the artist, but not so much as stamps of lasting interest to philatelists. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this article passes the notability test, Wikipedia is going to run out of electrons. ;-) Seriously, as a philatelist, I think this is of such insignificant value that it does not merit its own article and is adequately covered in the article on the artist. Ecphora (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Ecphora, but it's about the stamps: [28], [29], [30], [31]. Coverage includes HuffPo, BBC, Washington Post... Drmies (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but it's about the art on the stamps. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the nominator, that not every stamp with some controversy around it needs to be paraded in a separate entry. Compare e.g. the 1974 Western German stamp covering communist Rosa Luxemburg, here and in various other cases no coverage needed besides the entry for the person herself. The article covers the stamps, not the artist being honored. In so far noteable and, by global media interest, a snowball keep. The controversy and the success of the stamps received worldwide coverage and interest, major German (Spiegel, Stern, Tagesspiegel Berlin), Italian (Corriere della sera) and French media (Arte, Le Point) included. It seems as well that the issue of the stamps (+ the postal museum in Tampere exhibition about ToF) was a statement with regard to the political discussions about gay marriage in Finlad. The exhibition press release called ToF the most famous Finnish artist. I wasn't aware till that entry that he was a Fin at all. Polentarion Talk 21:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of the approx 10,000 stamps issued worldwide the vast majority are NOT inherently notable even when they have some decent press coverage that many many stamps get, most often around the time of their release, be it controversial reports or not. I fear many of the keep voters just look at the fact there particular stamps have some press coverage and think that is notable enough to warrant an article of its own, but that argument goes for most other postage stamps. The usual way to recognise such works is to have a specific section in the artist own article which is why I suggest a merge. ww2censor (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that most stamps honoring a person or event are not deserving an article of its own, similar as e.g. in case of naming a street or bestowing an order or honorary degree does not make the event or the medal as such noteable. But this case seems to be different, compare Naked Maja (postage stamps). An AfD there should fail as well, as those Spanish stamps were being banned in Boston and beyond for being stamps. That said, noteability in both cases applies to the stamps as such, not the pictures nor the artist in question. Polentarion Talk 00:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Another Believer. It seems coverage is sufficient. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Consensus herein is for deletion of all these articles, per not meeting the criteria at WP:SPORTSEVENT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 2015 ASEAN School Games[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable sports event. Fails WP:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Events not at elite level (school level particularly) are generally not notable and certainly not in these cases. Ajf773 (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, and stats page that do not require individual pages. FuriouslySerene (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2015 ASEAN School Games, which meets GNG as has multiple independent coverage. Results are relevant facts to store at that location. SFB 23:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and oppose merge to 2015 ASEAN School Games. All the sub articles are simply results from each event. Wikipedia is not a almanac of every detail for non-notable events. Mkdw ^talk 05:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - WP:CSD#A7 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucie Leud[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:ARTIST. Note that the editor who created this article is supposedly the articles subject. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 03:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe one day, not right now. No sources found to support notability on either GNG/SNG/BASIC. This could be probably speedied too as the article has no claim of significance and has been recently created (I noticed you've put a speedy tag after the Afd tag; close this Afd if the speedy is done). Lourdes 03:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Alt-right#Reactions. There is reasonably clear consensus that the chrome extension is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Consensus also appears to be converging towards a merge outcome. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Normalizing Alt Right Chrome extension[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been PRODed and deproded twice, and the deproding rationales seem to be in conflict, so I'm bringing it here. Yes, the extension has received some media coverage, but all of it was at the end of November, around the time of the release, and it has received none since. The coverage has not been sustained, and while the phrase "stop normalizing" has become much more used since the 2016 US election, I don't see any evidence that the group behind this extension or the extension itself received more than its 15 minutes of fame. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would support deletion because firstly the article is extremely short and it doesn't really explain what the extension did, you have to go to the references for that, secondly, it could be easily incorporated into the criticism section of the main alt-right page which would also reflect its notability and finally because all of the references are from one date meaning that it could be described at best as a short social movement and at worst a fad. DrStrauss talk 19:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: This article is long enough and definitely passes the A3 criteria for speedy deletion. Also, I added what the extension did. Also, if one included all the criticisms of the alt-right movement, that section would be impossibly long. Also, it doesn't matter if the refs are all from one date. It really doesn't. Also, see my keep vote. (Also also also) RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz: while it may pass A3 it is still only three lines long which would add a paragraph to the alt-right movement page which is less than impossibly long at any stretch. The "all one date" criticism wasn't meant as a specific reason as to why it should be deleted but more for its lack of notability - it has had fifteen minutes of fame and those minutes can be incorporated into hours of the alt-right criticism page. DrStrauss talk 19:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: Can you please give me a specific reason why the article should be deleted? It would be preferable if you could tell me either why deleting this article would benefit the encyclopedia or what notability guidelines it violates? Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz: the article's content is notable but the content itself does not warrant an article in itself. Users reading about criticisms of the alt-right would be better equipped to get this information as a paragraph in that section as opposed to having to navigate to a short stub. A redirect can be left for those who are looking for it specifically. Cheers DrStrauss talk 20:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the article isn't written very well, the subject is definitely notable, it passes WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. It does need to be expanded though. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz: I can write up a draft of an updated reactions section in the alt-right page if it'd be of use? DrStrauss talk 10:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Blow it up and start over - The article as it is doesn't have any useful encyclopedic content. The article as it is is crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unsustained coverage and a few minor news articles. This is a good example of why we need A7 for software. Laurdecl ^talk 06:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I doubt coverage will be sustained but I'm just not seeing how this doesn't meet the WP:GNG (and there's no reason to rush to delete). Certainly substantial coverage in dozens of reliable sources, including Mashable, NBC News, Huffington Post, the Next Web. I' not aware of any policy that supports deletion, and remember WP:NOTPAPER. The main argument against keeping is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, but this isn't a "routine" event, and it may be premature to assess whether coverage will be sustained. FuriouslySerene (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Merge to Alt-right per Northamerica1000. This is the most sensible solution since this article is likely to never grow any further. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alt-right § Reactions, which presently has no mention of this. This will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alt-right § Reactions per Northamerica1000. This article brings up criticism of the "Alt-Right" without anything else that justifies its own article. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alt-right#Reactions. The coverage seems to be mostly in terms of the alt-right itself, and it's mostly announcements that this exists, not in-depth analysis. Compare to something like Adblock Plus, which gets continuing coverage, like this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Alt-right#Reactions. This seems broadly like a sensible solution. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge or Rename with a Redirect: the information in the article is helpful. If the article needs to be improved, improve it. Or perhaps just make the article on the "stop normalizing" group, which has a website, facebook page and twitter feed. Especially since there is now a version of the extension for Firefox. Beth Wellington (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the nominator, I'm fine with the merge per Northamerica1000's arguments. Since there are still delete !votes out, this doesn't count as withdrawing, but I did want to note it for the closer. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1984ensemble[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. Single dvd release in 2016. Very new. scope_creep (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources in the article don't give more than trivial coverage, no sources found on google or google news, fails WP:GNG. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 09:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I had PRODed this back in April with the argument that roughly the same rationale that applied in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kris Reeder applied here; that this was a non-notable project by the same non-notable person. I believe the same rationale I articulated then still applies now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J Michael Cole[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:JOURNALIST. References 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 are all self-written. In the only 2 independent sources, Ref 5 and 7, He's only mentioned in "works cited". There seems to be some WP:ADVOCACY going on by the page creator, because his other recent articles Brian Hioe (also on AFD) and Michael Turton (also on AFD) are also political bloggers on Taiwan with a certain sociopolitical leaning, and along with this article serve as each other's references and incoming links. Timmyshin (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 03:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 03:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a walled garden of articles on non-notable media figures in Taiwan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of apparent notability, despite over abundance of references, and walled-garden concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't see any articles about him, just profiles of him as contributor to various publications. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This article appears to be self-promotion more than anything else. South Nashua (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Turton[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An English teacher in Taiwan who keeps a blog about politics. Nothing that meets WP:JOURNALIST, WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Page alleges that he has a "regular column with Taiwan News", but I'm only seeing 6 posts all in the past 2 months. Ref 2, 4, 5 are opinion pieces by himself. None of the references talks about him in depth except for Ref 7 (an interview) and maybe Ref 3 (which focuses on his anti-Mormon diatribes in relation to his evangelical background, but that information is absent in the article). There seems to be some WP:ADVOCACY going on by the page creator, because his other recent articles Brian Hioe (also on AFD) and J Michael Cole are also political bloggers on Taiwan with a certain sociopolitical leaning, and along with this article serve as each other's references and incoming links. Timmyshin (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 03:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 03:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a blogger, of whom there are legion. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply an article with announcements, listings and mentions sugarcoating an article with simple information, not only is that not actual substance but it shows there's simply nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was wrong venue. Drafts are discussed at MFD. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gavyn Bailey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article exists: Gavyn Bailey Fuddle (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. czar 09:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heroine's Quest[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as not notable. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 01:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WP:VG/S RS search engine provides a large number of reliable sources which suggest notability. --Izno (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has a large number of third-party sources. Clearly notable. Lord Lemming (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

??? I'm not sure what you need more "consensus" for, Jack's argument has been disproven with the evidence above. Does actual evidence count here or is this just an opinion poll about how many people like the article? Lord Lemming (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough reviews to establish notability: [32] from RPGamer, [33] from Gamezebo, and [34] from Rock, Paper, Shotgun. There's other stuff in the VG/RS search, too, like [35] from PC Gamer. It's a little light, but there's enough here to keep it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Live[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

When the article was previously considered for AfD, the result was no consensus. The film has since been released (2011) and I cannot find any evidence it satisfies WP:NFILM. Dan arndt (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being TOO SOON. Allow a return ONLY if or when the projects meets WP:NF. No prejudice against it be incubated. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I only found one reliable source. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator that the film does not yet meet WP:NFILM. A very preliminary WP:BEFORE search revealed nothing. Mkdw ^talk 05:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.