< 27 January	29 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HazeBanga[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. Non-substanial notability for a music producer. Being know for a "gifted ear" isn't sufficient enough for a WP page, and neither is inheriting notability from working with Hit-Boy. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily. Per WP:NMUSIC#8, which says a person may be notable if the subject "has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy". HazeBanga is Grammy nominated for the 2017 Album of the Year category [1][2][3]; that's quite significant; and in fact is already a winner of the ASCAP awards.[4] Pinging the nominator to check if they'll consider withdrawing the nomination. Thanks. Lourdes 09:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe "easily" used above is an attempt to make you glance over this. Ask yourself, "who is HazeBanga?" If the answer is "I have no idea" than he/she does not deserve a wp page. "Production" on a hit grammy single is WP:INHERIT at best, and doesn't deserve its own page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Comatmebro. ""Who is HazeBanga?" If the answer is "I have no idea" than he/she does not deserve a wp page." What was that?! ""Production" on a hit grammy single is WP:INHERIT at best" :D Comatbero. This is the desk for discussing deletion of articles. Guidelines for notability have developed over years of discussion and your not liking WP:NMUSIC cannot wish away the existence of a guideline, for your preference of an WP:INHERIT essay, which is also absolutely misdirected. People don't get Grammy nominations for Album of the Year or win ASCAP awards based on whether you or I know them – and that's absolutely not WP:INHERITED (I really can't get what's your play here). Your not knowing the individual is no reason to nominate the same for Afd. I suggest in good faith that you spruce up your knowledge of our notability guidelines because your response on NMUSIC is not something I've seen in the past on Afds. Please feel free to ask me for any assistance or clarification. Lourdes 02:48, 5 February 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 by speedy (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Thirtyacre[edit]

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

No third-party evidence of notability. Google turns up usual vanity hits. Not all Youtubers are notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Because looks like copied from Wikia. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 22:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and lacking in any coverage (that I can find) from RS. Also to add to what Robert McClenon said - I'd say that most YouTubers aren't notable per our current guidelines. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:08, 29 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Transnistria[edit]

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

Empty list Rathfelder (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's an empty list because the referenced database does not have any listings for this "country". No references tie stratigraphy and this geographic entity together.Glendoremus (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems pointless to have an empty list. If reliably sourced information becomes available in the future, the list can be re-created. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is pointless to have an empty list in article space. Anyone that wants to work on this can move it or copy it to Draft:List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Transnistria until some actual content is added. Gnome de plume (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Moldova Unscintillating (talk) 04:58, 4 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in South Ossetia[edit]

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

Empty list Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's an empty list because the referenced database does not have any listings for this "country". No references tie stratigraphy and this geographic entity together.Glendoremus (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I did some researches. There's lots of references from reliable sources but the article needs lots of changes and work. Its not a separated country, just little region as a part of Russia. Weak keep if proper sources and links will be added. There's more than enough of them in simple google search — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasserrano (talk • contribs)
Delete - It seems pointless to have an empty list. If reliably sourced information becomes available in the future, the list can be re-created. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that it is pointless to have an empty list in article space. Anyone that wants to work on this can move it or copy it to Draft:List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in South Ossetia until some actual content is added. Gnome de plume (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The whole set of "stratigraphic units" list per country sounds questionable to me. I realize there might be too many of them to merge all in Lists_of_fossiliferous_stratigraphic_units_in_Europe, but it is fairly obvious that there will be some imbalance of length between e.g. List_of_fossiliferous_stratigraphic_units_in_Italy and List_of_fossiliferous_stratigraphic_units_in_Luxembourg. Couldn't them be sorted by more general geographic areas rather than country (which would also avoid questions such as whether South Ossetia is a country)? (I realize that creating those articles was more productive that my whining here, but hey, it's true.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't know that the list is empty if it is deleted. Deletion also prevents additions. Unscintillating (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists nothing. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 05:28, 4 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Abkhazia[edit]

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

list with no content. "Under construction" since 2014 Rathfelder (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's an empty list because the referenced database does not have any listings for this "country". No references tie stratigraphy and this geographic entity together.Glendoremus (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems pointless to have an empty list. If reliably sourced information becomes available in the future, the list can be re-created. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree it is pointless to have an empty list in article space. Anyone that wants to work on this can move it or copy it to Draft:List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Abkhazia until some actual content is added. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Georgia. Unscintillating (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists nothing. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 05:28, 4 February 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. Mz7 (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank J. Brown[edit]

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

Cannot any sources did not pass Wp:Bio. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 22:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was created by a new editor at a Minneapolis meetup designed to "improve coverage and increase visibility of African American visual artists in Wikipedia." I was able to find several independent reliable sources with just a few minutes of searching, and I think more can be found. Please give this new editor and new article some time. Jonathunder (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Jonathunder. It needs some expansion, but afd is not cleanup. If more expansion can't happen, we can always come back here. I think the coverage so far is a good start. South Nashua (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has been expanded since nomination with multiple references demonstrating notability. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (edit conflict) Jonathunder has done a good job in finding new sources and adding new content, demonstrating that this individual is notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good save. Kablammo (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And close the Afd. Article has been considerably improved. Lourdes 10:02, 4 February 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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buses in Prague[edit]

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

Unsourced article which thus lacks proof of the notability of this subject. T v x1 22:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not mentioning sources in article itself doesn't necessarily mean a subject is not notable. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, but doing so leaves us with a manner to determine the notability of the subject. Notability is not assumed or inherited.T v x1 01:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A main article/list about all public bus transit lines in a major European city like this is going to inherently meet WP:BUSOUTCOMES. In fact that guideline states that individual lines should be a commonly merged into a "suitable list article," which is exactly what this is, it seems to me. Also, in terms of Category:Public transport in Prague, see WP:CLN. Whatever the shortcomings of the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have missed the point where wikipedia became a database of all buslines in the world. Why should we be a mirror of all the websites of bus companies in the world? and your quoted guideline doesn't say every such list is suitable. You haven't provided any clear argument why this particular list is suitable.T v x1 01:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this one and an attempt to speedy delete List of bus routes in Malta came out of a disagreement that the nominator is having here, at User_talk:Tvx1#Articles_for_creation:_Bus_transport_in_Budapest, over the fate of a rejected Afc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF. If the author of the draft provides independent sources demonstrating notability it might be accepted. The user mentioned two other articles of questionable quality/suitability and after realising they were right I instigated the deletion processes.T v x1 01:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply pointing out that this is where Afds seemed to originate. As for the rest, I have just issued the nominator a 1st level warning against restoring the speedy delete tag, when I removed it with explanation that I felt it required an Afd -- just as this one does. The restoration of the tag is disruptive. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The csd has nothing to do with this deletion discussion. Discuss that the article that this nomiation deals with.T v x1 01:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have my !vote above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly a notable topic with a long and interesting history, see better referenced and developed Czech article on the same topic for inspiration: cs:Městská autobusová doprava v Praze. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so "clearly" at all. No evidence is provided at all. Another wiki isn't justification.T v x1 15:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The history and present state of buses in a major European capital city is unquestionably a notable topic. If this were just a list of present day route numbers and stopping patterns you might have a case, but it is much more than this. The well-sourced Czech article demonsitrates that there is scope for expansion too (not that this is a requirement). Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The history and present state of buses in a major European capital city is unquestionably a notable topic." Nope, wrong. Just because a city is notable, it doesn't mean a bus system in it is as well. Notability isn't inherited but needs to independently proven. And something being notable enough for the another wiki doesn't mean it automatically is for this one as well.T v x1 19:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per above - No valid reason has been presented for deletion, I would advise the nominator to read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. –Davey2010^Talk 18:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pure opinion. My reason is very valid. Notability isn't inherited or assumed. It has to be demonstrated.T v x1 19:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion reason of being unsourced has been addressed, no further concerns are outstanding. The article on Czech-language Wikipedia shows that sources for this content do exist, including a specialist book on the topic by Fojtík and Prošek, sustained coverage across various national media, plus all of the things mentioned in keep arguments above. Suggest nominator reads WP:BEFORE ahead of future frivolous nominations. Disagreeing with every !voter does not increase any reason for deletion. C 679 16:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. It could use some copy-editing by a knowledgeable editor. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per my first comment and everything stated above. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The bus service of a very major city is clearly a notable topic, which is all we're here to discuss at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited. Why have a standalone article on something which can easily be dealt with on the relevant city's article?T v x1 22:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand/improve - an obviously GNG covered topic that may need improvement and sourcing DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been added. They seem enough. The article although needs improvement. Lourdes 10:05, 4 February 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. a relist will not come to a different conclusion DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AmapDigital[edit]

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

Clearly a heavily-noticeable and company-involved paid advertisement or someone emulating the signs quite close to it, which are both mirrorable, because what's here is sourcing of clear paid press, listings, announcements and similar, and searches found nothing better, which is unsurprising since these local publications only focus with what's given to them by payment, especially with heavy PR-emphasis; there's nothing here satisfying our policies and the history shows the unsurprising consistency of SPA accounts and IPs. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear violation of WP:NOT with citing from a press release:

Tata Sky, CMO, Vikram Mehra says "With a subscriber base of 4.5M, Tata Sky has played a significant role in the growth and development of the DTH sector that is poised to touch the 40-50M by 2015. At the stage that the industry is in, we think it’s time that efforts are made to understand and measure the audience viewing habits of these viewers better and are excited to associate with India’s leading TV Audience Measurement System, aMap”

What the what? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 30 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Monica Observer[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax, while the website indeed does exist, the articles on it are almost certainly fake reports (I came here while searching Google News, which stupidly has indexed this fake site (see [5]) ). I could not find any RS confirming this, but I'm certain this is the case. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To make matters worse there are articles that have citations to the website. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It definitely seems shady. Found YELP reviews [6] and this 2009 lawsuit against them [7]. MB 03:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is coverage about them being called a newspaper "that has virtually no journalistic quality to it whatsoever" [8], news coverage about the lawsuit against SMO [9]. Here is a Santa Monica history book listing it as a newspaper started in 1998 [10]. Here is coverage that says "Santa Monica Observer plays fast and loose with the facts" and it's "unclear whether the authors are real people" [11]. Here is a report saying the SMO story on pot was NOT true [12] and another [13]. There might be enough here for an article documenting all the reports that is not reputable. MB 04:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a real newspaper and should have an article, but the publication seems to engage in some shady practices. Instead of deleting the article, editors should improve it to report controversies and legal troubles in which it has been involved. Link #7 above, for an article with "Fake News" in the headline, is about "santamonicanews.org," NOT the Santa Monica Observer, which is the subject of the article we're discussing. DonFB (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another source [14] indicating the newspaper's authenticity. DonFB (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Weird, I did look for sources relating to it, but could find none, I thought this was just some site set up by a crook with SEO skills to manipulate results on Google News. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DonFB Link #7 above is about both. If you read far enough, the second part is about the SMO and it questions if the reporters listed in its articles are made up. The fact that this is a real newspaper does not automatically make it notable. A weekly paper with a circulation of 1200 is tiny. All such minor publications need to meet GNG if they don't meet WP:NMEDIA, which this one does NOT. The few mentions questioning its reliability are something, but I'm leaning towards not-notable. MB 00:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well-noted, and my bad for a hasty scan and not reading thoroughly. As noted here, it's been the subject of negative coverage about its work, but it's not a hoax site. I don't know that its circulation or publication frequency are necessarily factors in its notability (the Village Voice is a weekly) but I'd like to know the source for the 1200 figure. DonFB (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 1200 figure comes from the source you provided (link #10). Circulation/frequency help toward WP:NMEDIA Newspapers#4. A small paper is not going to be "frequently cited by other reliable sources". I don't see any chance of it meeting any of the other criteria (award winning, historic, reliable, or significant). MB 02:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Although it exists, it is not significant. MB 04:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable tabloid which may or may not be a real news outlet. Here's what I was able to find from Santa Monica Next: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a repeat of #7 above. MB 01:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's like a garage band, just not Notable until somebody else takes real note of it. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MB's argument is compelling and logical. The sources too are rudimentary. Lourdes 10:06, 4 February 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. Sandstein 21:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of bird voices[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:NOTGALLERY because it is a collection of images and sound files. It fails WP:NOTDIR as it is a simple listing of items (in this case bird sounds). The sound files should probably be on the article about the bird from which the sound comes from (if not already). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 20:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 20:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha.... "sound files should probably be on the article about the bird" ... "should" "probably". Why dont you make sure then? -- Draffi (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the following reasons - firstly, WP:NOTGALLERY as mentioned in the nomination. Secondly, it's a list with no stated inclusion criteria - does the page creator intend to spend their entire life adding images and recorded birdsong for every single bird species that exists? Thirdly, as the nominator states, the information in this list should be added instead to the articles for each relevant species of bird. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Exemplo347; this is the kind of page that should exist only on Commons, to organize media files found there. I don't see this as capable of being developed into more than that. postdlf (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice stuff in there, but unless this is planned to contain all bird recordings available (which would break any list), the reader should expect to find a sample in the species article. There is no reason to go looking for an incomplete list.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this is something that should be in Commons but not Wikipedia itself Spiderone 21:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Ajf773 (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and others. Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (hesitantly) - Because its fun to play a bunch of them at the same time. But in all seriousness, if these aren't yet incorporated into the corresponding articles, it should stay, at least as a reference for future incorporation. Yes, a delete is completely reasonable, as per the previous policies, however, it serves as a valuable resource. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User Azcolvin429 is right actually. It's nice to hear the bird voices. It's almost like a collection I'd love to have. It's unfortunate that all the work editors have done on this article will go down the drain. But there's nothing much that can be done. Wikipedia is not a repository site, as said above. Lourdes 10:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the English names should be added but this work is not worth it if the article is deleted anyway. For people who like bird watching there might better places than Wikipedia. -- Draffi (talk) 14:00, 4 February 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Durov Animal Theater[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY, and Russian article has little to add in terms of information, sourcing or evidence for notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- meets GNG per available sources: Google books: "one of a kind" etc. This news article describes the 105 history of the theatre: "Moscow Durov Animal Theater Celebrates 105th anniversary" (can be read via Google translate). More sources likely exist in Russian. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news article is good. There's a documentary film about the theater [15]. Given the long history, it's very unlikely that there aren't more sources in Russian (which I have no chance of finding). I think notability can be assumed here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I've clearly been too harsh here. Thanks for the comments above, Boleyn (talk) 09:07, 29 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 23:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HighGrow[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable independent sources. The1337gamer (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 22:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to have been a proposed deletion ten years ago that was contested. But no notability evidence supplied in that decade! Claiming something was "popularized" clearly would need some source to quantify the claim. W Nowicki (talk) 19:18, 30 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) 10:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Axe[edit]

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

I don't believe this qualifies as notable per WP:NSPORTS. Doesn't appear to be a championship or other top-level event. There is routine yearly coverage in the college papers of the two participating colleges, but no other mentions of the race in sources independent of the participants. Other appearances of "Olympic axe" online appear to refer to sports in danger of being cut from the Olympics, as in "sport X to face Olympic axe?", rather than this race. No book mentions that I can see in Google Books. Google News and Google News archive also return no results aside from "sport X to face Olympic axe" type headlines. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find coverage in college publications only in a relatively fast google search. That, combined with what looks to be thorough research by User:PMC, and I can't see any evidence it passes WP:GNG. I would recommend a redirect, but that would get messy considering two college teams are always involved, not just one. Yvarta (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unconvincing in the needed independent notability and all information is only a few sentences. SwisterTwister talk 02:21, 30 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 to TBWA Worldwide#Agencies and multihub creative networks. Merging can be discussed on the article talkpage and/or carried out using the article history. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magnon\TBWA[edit]

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

Article is meant to promote the company, like the founder page has been deleted for extreme promotions. It is a part of TBWA else nothing is there to be like encyclopedic here. Article reads like press chunks made into one article. Light2021 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete as clear company advertising and the history confirms if therefore the policy violations are enough to delete enough, worse then when the sources are clear paid press. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or partial merge in accordance with Light2021's merge recommendation last October. Glancing through the press, I think there may be a chance this topic is notable [16], [17], [18], but the content verges more on a CEO/staff focus than the company itself, and so I still hesitate to just say keep. The merge or redirect wipes out the poorly written buzz-word content, but leaves the location open to guide readers or allow expansion in the future from more neutral or experienced parties. Yvarta (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor selective merge to TBWA Worldwide § Agencies and multihub creative networks, which provides no context other than stating Magnon\TBWA's name there. This will improve the merge target article, and Yvarta's suggestion above is functional. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TBWA Worldwide#Agencies and multihub creative networks -- content not suitable for merging as currently present in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Promotional article should redirect to TBWA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:11, 31 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 (CSD G11; housekeeping closure) (non-admin closure). Linguist ^talk|contribs 15:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clovia[edit]

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

The article is clearly written to promote company and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. possibly by speedy G11. Pure advertisement, with the pretense of being supported by sources, but they are PR — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry but I don't believe it's blatant enough for G11. The article has refs and a reasonable claim to notability, despite the spammy passages. Afd is the proper for forum for this, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Speedy delete -- clear advertising created by a user with no other contributions: Special:Contributions/Shrutikapoor688. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 29 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 23:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XXPEN$IVE[edit]

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

Body of the article discusses the single "How many Fucks" but the article is titled "XXPEN$IVE" which looks to be a different song by the artist. Either way, per WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC the artist is non-noteable and the songs are non-noteable as well. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - violates WP:CRYSTAL and is currently non-notable. Carbrera (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: TOOSOON and currently fails GNG and NMUSIC. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above said. Zero notability and fails to meet GNG and NMUSIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNC and NMUSIC Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself is malformed, in my opinion, given the ambiguity between the contents and the title. Fails GNG/NMUSIC. Lourdes 10:13, 4 February 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 23:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formosis[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG since it has seeminly not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Lincolnite (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searched several hundred google hits, and could not find anything that would help prove the topic passes WP:GNG. I also could not find any notable awards. Yvarta (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising sourced by advertising, enough policy violations in that alone, and then complimented by the fact these accounts were advertising-only (quite heavily). SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of violations!! Clearly advertising — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asis1990 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Not notable WP:CORPDEPTH.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't qualify on WP:ORG. If some sources can be found which aren't promotional in nature, my !vote can change. Lourdes 10:14, 4 February 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revealed Recordings[edit]

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

Label that is associated with the Dutch DJ Hardwell. Notability is not inherited however and the two charting singles on the label are by him. Lacks sources and the list of artists largely refers to collaborations with Hardwell. Karst (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What started as one of the major dance labels in the world in 2013 has become a minor dance label that Hardwell uses to promote talent. I think deletion is the best option. Stillnix (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Promoting talent is what record labels do, so that's not a reason to delete. When I do a Google news search, I see plenty of items about this label, but I can't tell which if any are editorially controlled independent sources. Wikipedia:Notability (music) doesn't cover labels, which are either companies and brands, so I'm not sure charting is the criteria. Note that the article says that its "parent" is Cloud 9 Music, but there is no article about Cloud 9. Many of the articles about artists listed on the page don't mention Revealed Recordings. Stillnix, why do you say that the label used to be major?—Anne Delong (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Delong, Promoting talent is indeed what labels do, what i meant is that revealed nowadays releases lots of music of artist that are yet not very widely known (with the exception of Hardwell of course). Your argument that the notability of a record label correlates with its brand value, is valid. However, it's hard for me to determine Revealed's brand value. What I see on google news is, that the label is mostly mentioned on (independent) EDM-related sites. This is fine, but doesn't prove to me that the brand is strong enough for a wikipedia page. If someone else can prove this, it's end of discussion of course. For me, the notability of a music label also strongly correlates with the released music. In 2016, out of 68 releases, only 5 tracks have charted in the beatport top 10 (selling platform for EDM tracks)^[1] and only 1 has charted on national charts (Hardwell - Thinking About You). In 2013, 21 out of 34 releases reached the top 10 in the beatport top 100 and 5 entered a national chart. Revealed dropped from being the label with the second most points in the beatport top 100 in 2014 ^[2] to #9 in 2016. This indicates that the notability of the label has decreased significally in comparison with 2013 and 2014. Furthermore, major artists on the label Dyro (#27 DJmag top 100 2014) and Dannic (#30 DJmag top 100 2014) have started their own label independent from Revealed (Wolv and Fonk respectively), making Hardwell the only DJ in the DJmag top 100 that is signed to the label. Finally, Revealed is indeed a sublabel of Cloud 9 (Dutch music label). In conclusion, I highly doubt it that Revealed Recordings is relevent enough for a wikipedia page. Stillnix (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stillnix, it seems that if the article is to be kept, it will be because it passes WP:GNG. This depends on multiple reliable independent sources writing about the subject. If you indicate which ones these are, it will help others (like me) to judge and !vote to keep or delete. About declining prominence: it's not only a company or brand's current activities that determine whether there is an article. Plenty of well-known organizations are no longer even in existence, but we don't delete the articles about them because they later declined. If you don't believe that the 2013 releases and chart performance warrant an article, is that because they were mainly related to Hardwell himself? If so, maybe the information about Revealed should be summarized in Hartwell's article and the Reveled article redirected there. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you point are both advocating deletion and pointing out notable activities from a few years ago.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Delong, To begin with, it's just a point of view that the article is not relevant enough (anymore). You bring up a lot of good reasons why it still is and who am I to not adjust my opinion if they make sense. Above all, I am no expert in wikipedia deletion policies. I am 100% sure that the label was relevant in 2013, not only because of Hardwell, but also because of other artists and tracks that were popular. However, I think that the article in its current form doesn't reflect this in any way.Stillnix (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Anne Delong was trying to point out is that notability is not temporary. If this was once one of the major dance labels in the world, then its current meager state is irrelevant. If it can be demonstrated through reliable sources that it was once one of the major dance labels, then I would vote to keep the article as on a topic of significant cultural relevance, however I'm not familiar with the genre, and like others don't feel qualified to judge the journalistic integrity of the several sources that might be used. If I were forced to make a choice, I'm inclined to !vote keep per SoWhy below, but hope those with expertise far exceeding my own (wouldn't take much) will participate here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete Unable to find any significant, independent coverage in WP:RS, and doesn't appear to qualify as a company under any SNG. Only significant mentions are in articles about founder's music being released on his label. Appears to be a vanity label more than anything else. New artist development efforts, to whatever extent they exist, are not generating significant coverage. Only reference I found was to a couple of remix contests of Hardwell's music. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While most sources seem to be limited to mention new albums being released under this label (and there are more than 1,800+ GNews-hits to choose from), there are some sources that actually mention the label itself, such as [19] (mentions 5 year anniversary and its great support for NL artists as well as label-specific events at Miami Music Week). This combined with the ton of sources that mention a number of other artists besides Hardwell is sufficient for inclusion. Btw, per WP:ATD deletion is not a valid option anyway, since the content can be merged / the article redirected to Hardwell's entry. Regards So Why 18:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hardwell; it really doesn't seem like there's enough material to justify a separate article given that this one can be summarized in a paragraph. Honestly, the same should be done with Hardwell On Air, which makes Revealed Recordings look bulky in comparison. Matt Deres (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable record label. Article can be improved. - TheMagnificentist 16:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Since Hardwell is a notable person, this article should either be kept, or at a minimum, merged with its founder, but NOT deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think merging would take up a lot of space on Hardwell's article. - TheMagnificentist 09:07, 4 February 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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morson Group[edit]

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

Article seems promotional, fails to establish notability. RoCo^(talk) 16:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree, Notability - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northern Pasty (talk • contribs) 16:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC) — Northern Pasty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Notability seems to have been established but the article is edited by WP:COI editors including User:Northern Pasty and User:Mor Mark and it needs a serious rewrite to remove the promotional soapbox phrases. i have started by removing the embedded links to the company web page Domdeparis (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have carried out some quite serious pruning to remove the promotional aspect and reduce it to a neutral tone and I have also removed the peacock terms about the CEO as well as the embedded links to over a dozen pages of the companies web site. Hopefully this should address the promotional aspect of the article now we have to decide if it meets WP:NORG Domdeparis (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, I have made lots of edits to other unrelated articles but I don't usually sign in. I am still trying to learn how to edit wikipedia articles Northern Pasty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.104.49 (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northern Pasty: @135.196.104.49: No one is suggesting that yours is a Single purpose account, that said of the 138 total edits that you have made with both accounts at least 76 are on this subject (55%) and since you came back to editing in 2016 after 2 years away 76/88 (90%) of the edits are on Morson so it is a good thing to have made the disclosure I think. Domdeparis (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. unfortunately, there'snothing left to suppoort anarticle which would be more than a directory entry. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable recruiting firm going about its business. Content is still promotional, even after the pruning: awards, charities, office locations, etc. Content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It exists, but lacks substantial independent coverage from reliable sources, offered or to be found, to suggest that subject is notable. Continued presence on WP amounts to advertising, yet WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading all of your comments, I think I agree that this content is best on the Morson website, please go ahead and delete --Northern Pasty (talk) 08:18, 1 February 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelien Brentraus[edit]

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

Notability unclear. After a brief search, unclear how notability could be established, even with expansion. South Nashua (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this could also be deleted Template:Db-person or WP:BLPPROD. I'm going to try to first, faster way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 28 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. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Elephant 2[edit]

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

Information hype around the movie in Instagrame of Epifantsev significance is not particularly demonstrates;

Article is half assumptions: to remove it, and we will not have even a hint of the minimum requirements; in general it is not clear whether the film itself, or whether it was a joke with the aim to launch infopovod to see its extravagant projects of Epifantsev. In short, it is necessary to discuss here. --Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as WP:TOSOON. This is why I wish we had a speedy deletion category for films. This film isn't even released yet. It was announced just 3 week ago. According to the only source cited in the article, the script isn't even done yet. It may be notable someday, but not now. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created with the wrong template and never transcluded to a daily log. One of a series of malformed nominations. Fixed now--I offer no opinion of my own on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Green Elephant because the film has not begun shooting and thus should not have an article yet per WP:NFF. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Green Elephant. Information on a mooted sequel would be appropriate as a section in that article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Green Elephant]. Not enough sourced material to merge and certainly not enough to keep. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I changed my view on this. The Instagram account mentioned in the article has been deleted. It may not have even belonged to Epifantsev, possibly a hoax. There's no credible evidence that this sequel is even being considered, certainly far away from production. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:11, 4 February 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) 10:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Kosmynin[edit]

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

No evidence encyclopedic --Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created with the wrong template and never transcluded to a daily log. One of a series of malformed nominations. Fixed now--I offer no opinion of my own on the nomination itself at this time. @Jürgen Klinsmann1990: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 17:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is a politician in local government, a member of a city or county council. Not at state level or national level. I couldn't find anything in news reports that makes him more notable than other elected members of local councils. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a local politician. Ping me if you find anything reliable to the contrary. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 5 February 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. Seeing as no redirect target has been proposed, but it's technically still allowed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhupendra Khanal[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a stub for a living person, it's a dictionary definition. In that way, it's essentially spam. Even if it could be expanded, it appears that he's nothing more than a run of the mill business person. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 17:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. There is no such thing as a well formed one-sentence CEO bio on Wikipedia. Brianhe (talk) 17:51, 28 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. Article's subject is found to lack the requisite notability for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Bradish[edit]

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

Moving to AfD after the article creator attempted to remove the PROD tag. Concerns were raised at WP:BLPN [20] that the page was a largely promotional orphaned article that had been around for over a year without improvement and no indication that it might meet our inclusion standards. Upon reviewing the article and the artists discography, I do not think he passes WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. He is credited on albums from major labels, but always as a part of a group and never independently. There is no independent media coverage of him to satisfy GNG and combined with the article's promotional tone, it should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete massive - I followed WP:BEFORE and found nothing to support this biography. There are no independent reporting sources, in violation of WP:PRIMARY - it's a vanity promotional article. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is something to be said for the fact that the WP:MUSICBIO requirements favor musicians living in communities that receive a large amount of media coverage and are accessed by commercial music institutions. Cuba, where David Bradish has spent much of his career, is not such a place, and even its clearly genuine leading musicians receive little authenticated coverage. For example, the David Bradish page refers to Pucho Lopez. A google search of Pucho Lopez returns this hit in Spanish: https://www.cibercuba.com/noticias/2012/09/15/muere-pucho-lopez-uno-de-los-arreglistas-mas-famosos-de-cuba, indicated that Mr. Lopez is real and quite well known. Yet he has no Wikipedia page. If there were a Pucho Lopez page, it would potentially link to a David Bradish page, making that page no longer an orphan. I agree that the vast majority of this page does not satisfy GNG, however I would encourage the creator to attempt to modify it and edit down the content in a way that might meet those standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.236.248 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the problem is not that it's an orphan, but that the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines, despite what appears to be a long and varied career. I'm sure there's some place for this type of biography, but I don't think it's here. The is certainly an argument that Pucho López might be notable enough for an article, but that's not really the issue here. Shritwod (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be best if the creator made pages for the bands Fred's Laundry and Sad Motion and artists who had played with David Bradish, such as Pucho Lopez, which would meet notability guidelines, and David Bradish could be mentioned in those articles. This might be the most appropriate way to publish this content on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.236.248 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published: Aftonbladet is a Swedish tabloid published in Stockholm, Sweden. It is one of the larger daily newspapers in the Nordic countries.Expressen is one of two nationwide evening tabloid newspapers in Sweden, the other being Aftonbladet. Both on Wikipedia. Both newspapers have mentioned David separately many times on different occasions as David Bradish himself or as Mr Bradish when he worked as an independent artist - musician and also several mentions as a member of a band (main leader / singer of a band / bands). Articles don't report performance dates, release information or track listings. All of them underline David's achievements and engagement into social actions and projects (together with the Red Cross, national radio, public schools in Sweden and more). Some of the archives show private and officially signed letters e.g. from editors-in-chief or presidents of mentioned above newspapers and institutions / organizations. There is also a mention about David who was called publicly as the first King of Karaoke in a history of Sweden, when the country hadn't known yet what Karaoke is, back to 80s and 90s. If that's too little we can start gathering more press and media archives when David comes back from Cuba.

He was invited there another year in a row as a representative from Sweden to take part in the biggest and well known Havana Jazz Festival. I truly recommend to read a part concerning his engagement in Cuba.

I also disagree with the suggestion that the article has a promotional tone. If so, we can delete all links to all his personal platforms. Wikipedia article on David is nothing more than a life story told by a man who remembers 50s and the change of the world. He witnessed all social, political and economical changes through all these years. His struggle with American and Swedish system concerning private life and music. It is not a self promotion nor product placement and for sure not a paid material. I decided to write about David after seeing him on a stage and listen to many stories told by his friends, band members and so on. I am a journalist and writer and it is easy to check me up on Linkedin without any problem - you are more than welcome.

I disagree with the mark that "He is credited on albums from major labels, but always as a part of a group and never independently".

David released 3 albums on a major record labels (CBS, Sir Lancelot) both as a single artist under the name Mr. Bradish (there is a story on this in the article) and together with bands he established or was invited to perform with.

Has became one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city. As the only musician in Sweden he brought closer Karaoke to the swedish audience. He released first ever rap single. Sweden was too rural for rap music back to 70s and 80s. ”The Bureaucratic Boogie" was released in 1984 and was the Swedish first ever rap single. Mentioned by Aftonbladet press. He made a huge impact on rising awareness among Swedish students and society, while teaming up with the Red Cross, Save the children, Swedish Tv stations (Youtube still keeps this video) and Swedish radio, creating two huge projects - Dancers Who care and People Who Care - as a response to the Catastrophe in Ethiopia.

Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio in Sweden and Sky Channel in London (long before MTV had appeared).

On his website you can find all voice overs he did for big companies such as Carlsberg, MTV, Panasonic and more. Recordings these companies have sent are uploaded to his website. That's why I made this website as a main source of information.

I would like to receive clear and simple answers what I should submit to keep this article. If you still think that it has promotional tone, please show me which parts and we can calm the tone a bit if needed. Please take a note that this musician is 72 and some evidence such as private contracts with Labels etc. might be provided after his death.

As I mentioned earlier, everything requires time. Especially when the artist is alive, still active and hard to reach due to his age and travels. I started creating this article, linking up names believing that someone will start continuing my work. Some names I bolded out in red to encourage others to extend it and create other profiles of great artists that worked their fingers off through their whole lives without being addicted to flash lights and cameras. Real, talented artist not those puppets created by agencies. Agata Mayer (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Agata Mayer[reply]

Delete as fails to meet WP:GNG. The references, though plentiful, are all self-published. This is a vanity article. Lincolnite (talk) 23:16, 6 February 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. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Renzu[edit]

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

Self-promo with no notability. Virtually no coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:Director based on lack of coverage of the individual and the works. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing satisfying our standards and policies as there's no automatic inherited notability and what's here is simply too trivial to establish his own notability, the current source is only an announcement and searches found mirrors of this, so since there's no significant sourcing, there's not the substance needed in articles. There being only announcements so far, including what he plans in his career, suggests it's far too soon. This also violates our pillar policy WP:NOT as the listed source is a clear paid press, since it focuses with only his own republished words and thus also violating WP:RS, since sourcing must be independent of the subject. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no involvement in any notable films Spiderone 22:05, 28 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. sufficient consensus -- a relist is unlikely to come to a different conclusion DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grabhouse[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for six months now; no noticeable improvements. A single layoff event carries half of the article's sourcing [21]. The other half pretty much covers startup funding and their bare existence. So: what makes this a notable Internet startup in any way and why should it be part of the encyclopedia? Note the structural and sourcing issues described at COIN (permlink) that are typical of thrown-together startup WP:ADMASQ. Brianhe (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG Spiderone 20:28, 31 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 23:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan M. Greenberg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on this subject was deleted by AfD in April 2012. The comments in that AfD look applicable to this new instance too. However, the 3 minute feature from 2015 on CBS News probably makes this worthy of a new discussion. That said, interviews and photographs with notable individuals do not result in inherited notability for the interviewer, and my searches are finding nothing that I regard as overturning the previous AfD conclusion. AllyD (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't creating the educational program and teaching foreign born students about American culture and history notable?Jewjitsu84 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Educators at this level have no inherent notability, and the GNG definitely isn't met. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that the creator of the earlier deleted article edited the previous AfD after its closure to remove parts of the comments by User:Softlavender and User:MelanieN in this revision so it is no longer a fully-accurate summary of that AfD discussion. AllyD (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've rolled that back just now - see here - hopefully that's not going to need doing again. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:PROF. A puff piece in a very local newspaper doesn't count for much, and we have nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unconvincing in WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 02:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and salt). Too slight for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The one article on him is good but it's only local, so doesn't reach WP:GNG. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Certainly doesn't meet WP:PROF, and a piece in the local paper and three minutes on the telly doesn't come close to the WP:GNG. Salt because it's already been deleted once; didn't get through AfC either; and the SPA(s) involved are showing a worrying willingness to circumvent policy with multiple accounts involved, bypassing AfC and deleting portions of others' comments in the previous AfD (!) with a misleading edit summary. We shouldn't waste any more volunteer time on this. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No salting required. It's been recreated only once. Other than that, agree with the deletion. Lourdes 18:01, 4 February 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fali Ramadani[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Most of the references are in passing. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again as clearly a business listing and there's only named mentions of others, instantly making it unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I note that there are no actual honours under the "Honours" heading – rather a nomination. Citobun (talk) 17:19, 4 February 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. A redirect to Hullbridge may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES CalzGuy (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CalzGuy (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CalzGuy (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page shouild stay, as it gives more information and history about the school, that is not featured on their website. User12345567889 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing found in searches that suggests this primary school should be an exception to common outcomes. Gab4gab (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as our past AfD show. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and redirect to Hullbridge. This is the 'alternative to deletions' as outlined in WP:ATD-R - a policy, not just a mere guideline. Nominator please take note. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From ATD-R Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. - I wouldn't have thought this article title would classify as a useful redirect. But to each his own. If you would prefer it redirected - as I have suggested at another article we both know - I'd be happy with that. CalzGuy (talk) 16:36, 3 February 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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 08:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive talk radio[edit]

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

Major issues, all content is poorly sourced or very unclear. Either we delete this or someone takes the time to axe ~80% + of the content... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article needs improvement, it has some sources and discusses a notable topic. Any problems with the article can be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable enough to have an article, and the basic framework is OK. It does need work (and I'm doing my part). J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:26, 30 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Barbarona[edit]

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

The article hasn't established notability, little-to-no media coverage one would expect for a notable artist and the bio may have been created by PR at the Star Magic franchise. The only citation is a broken link to the website of ABS-CBN Talent Center, an alias for the Star Magic PR firm. WP:TOOSOON Cybela (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG ^{Babymissfortune} 03:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:58, 5 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MODDERN Cures Act[edit]

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

Nonnotable proposal in Congress. I could not find any sources talking about this subject in depth, only occasional mentions. Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:00, 5 February 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 Withdrawn, good enough for me--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Marín[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS: never participated at the competitions at the highest level in her sport (which are the Olympics) and did not receive sufficient coverage in independent sources. Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Easy to find secondary sources (see here). Added a few. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 11:27, 28 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David A. R. White[edit]

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

This seems to me to fail WP:GNG. Leaving aside the fact that the article "forgot" to mention that White is known solely for terrible evangelical Christian films, the only source that is not one of his own websites is an interview. There is no independent commentary establishing notability or anything other than credulous promotion. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations from IMDB and Fox News to the article to improve its compliance with GNG. I'd also note that while he is known for his work within the Christian film industry, he is a key player within the industry. To remove the article would significantly undermine Wikipedia's coverage of this industry. davemackey (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable independent source so does not do that. I'm not sure a Faux News column promoting faith-based acting does, either. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about this article from Deadline Hollywood, or this one from Something Awful (yes, I am aware the article rips the film to shreds), or this one from the blaze.davemackey (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really get this reliable sources thing. The number one source commenting on White's films is, of course God Awful Movies, but that's not reliable either. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine resume of a routine actor, one with signs of puffery: touting his 11 appearances on a 100-episode sitcom as if he were part of the supporting cast certainly raises a red flag. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not even routine. A bit part actor whose only real work is in zero-budged Christian movies of his own making. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, everything overall is simply trivial and there's nothing to confirm the substance we need; I'd go as far to say this is simply mirroring what his own IMDb would say, which says enough. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator exemplifies total failure of neautral point of view by expressing hateful attacks on Fox News. Such hateful rhetoric needs to be given no place in a balanced encyclopedia, and Thus needs to disqualify the unjustified attacks it is used to support. Beyond this there is no requirement that a filmmakers workers be judged "good" to have an article. Widespread coverage of the filmmaker's work is what is needed, and that has been demonstrated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 5 February 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 to Bumblebee (Transformers). Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 13:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goldbug (Transformers)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Autobots. BOZ (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Autobots, this subject is not notable enough for an individual article on Wikipedia, that would be more suited to Wikia or an external wiki. It is however be notable enough to go in List of Autobots. TouhouFan9801 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Autobots. Longevitydude (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Bumblebee (Transformers). I'm going to have to go with what the actual consensus was with the original AFD for this character. He is, literally, the same character as Bumblebee. Nearly all of the plot information about Bumblebee becoming Goldbug is already included in that article, and this article already was merged and redirected after the last AFD. Looking at the history of the page, it was just one editor in specific who would repeatedly restore the page every time the merge and redirect was completed. So, I say to restore this back to the redirect to Bumblebee, and merge any sourced information that may have been added since the last AFD. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (merge if anyone cares) and, please, protect. This article has been repeatedly recreated after being turned into a redirect. It's time to get rid of it for good. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bumblebee (transformers) per the IP. These are the same character. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 3 February 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunted Drum[edit]

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

I couldn't find any reviews in reliable sources to show this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found these reviews [22] and [23] and [24]. I found a blog [25] that said it received six nominations for the Subhanahongsa Awards, and its actress Woranuch Wongsawan nominated for best actress. There must be a lot more of this in Thai. MB 02:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per above. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 29 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) 10:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John McPhee (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Promotional article about a person who does not meet the General Notability Guideline. Sources within the article are typical of the 3 kinds of source I found while performing a WP:BEFORE search: 1) Articles about a house sale, 2) Press releases from companies, and 3) Passing mentions. None of these sources add to any claims of Notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. This article is part of a cluster of edits I have been watching that bear all the hallmarks of COI or even paid editing (new SPA creates a company article with promotional and Copyvio material, links to it, and creates a promo article about the company's president). And no, I'm not suggesting that is a reason for deletion. Meters (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete The article does not even suggest notability. MB 02:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- More and more highjinks. A new account is created. Minutes later he posts an OLD AFD tag on the article's talkpage claiming this AFD closed as KEEP, and then removes the AFD notice from the article. Then the article creator blanks the article and AFD notice, and, after the article is restored, requests a speedy deletion G7 AUTHOR REQUEST. Meters (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted that. You can't blank a page during an AfD discussion. @AnEditorNameA: - why don't you try participating in this discussion instead of acting like a child? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. hopelessly contaminated by paid editing ring. If there is any notability , it would have to be started over. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Part of a series of COI non-notable articles. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:48, 4 February 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Emmerich[edit]

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

Moderately promotional BLP that is sources largely from the subject's on web content and books on fad diets. A search for RSes turned up nothing convincing. Sources appear to be PR coverage. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Delta13C (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. Article states best selling "ketogenic cookbook". Maybe if it were a best selling cookbook. Searching does not find independent coverage. MB 02:49, 29 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 procedural close. The article was speedy deleted by Keegan per WP:G5 and WP:G10. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Bona[edit]

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

p Dfrgtvhbj (talk) 07:26, 28 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator is also creator of the article. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 07:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is a sock of community banned user Nsmutte and is just trolling. --bonadea contributions talk 07:52, 28 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. sufficient consensus--an additional relist is not likely to come to any different conclusion DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EFR-Business Week[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It sounds impressive, but the only news coverage I can find is a single press release and an article from a Dutch paper.--Calton | Talk 02:36, 29 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. Sandstein 21:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howls from the Hills[edit]

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

Aside from an allmusic review [26], coverage is barren on this non-charting album. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indistinguishable from a directory listing, and there's not even a hint of notability, let alone coverage. --Calton | Talk 02:34, 29 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Mackin[edit]

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

Was looking at this article to tag it for clean up, but looking at the sources and google results, I'm not sure this person meets WP:BASIC, as there just isn't that much out there for reliable secondary sources about why this person is notable. Submitting to AFD instead of tagging for clean-up. Fbifriday (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Notable BC journalist as per WP:JOURNALIST multiple citing by reporters, multiple authoring articles, has won significant attention sometimes, For example: he filed 1,913 about 40% of all provincial Freedom of Information requests by media 2009-2014 seanholman ref so is called FOI Warrior that may have cost taxpayers $3.85 million tyee and often raised criticism of government.Mackin in Georgia Straight headline

I do Agree that current content of biography needs improvement. Currently sounds too much like a resume and needs more third-party reliable sources. Canuckle (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage written by other people, not by being the author of media coverage about other subjects. The sources can't be blogs, so "seanholman ref" does nothing to assist; The Georgia Straight is a local alt-weekly and The Tyee is a webmedia venture, so while they would be valid for supplementary confirmation of facts after the article had already been Vancouver Sunned and Provinced and Globe and Mailed and CBCed over WP:GNG, they're not references that count toward the basic question of whether GNG has been passed in the first place. And as for the references present in the article, two are primary sources and one is another blog — CKNW is the only legitimate source at all, but (a) as a local radio station it doesn't bring GNG by itself for the same reason that The Georgia Straight and The Tyee can't bring GNG by themselves, and (b) it's a dead link, which means we can't even verify what it said. So no, you're not showing any of the kind of sourcing that it takes. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there's enough here in theory that he would probably pass WP:JOURNALIST if the article were sourced properly, there's nothing here that entitles him to an exemption from having to be sourced over WP:GNG. If he had won a Governor General's Award or the RBC Taylor Prize or the Hilary Weston Award for his book, for example, then one proper source for that fact would make it a must-keep — but if you're going for "notable because he exists", then the article has to be supported by a lot more reliable source coverage about him than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Bearcat. Needs to be more about him and there's not. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:15, 5 February 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. consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Logothetis[edit]

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

This is a resume, created by a driveby account. I can't find any notability; every Google search I do for Nicholas Logothetis always only gives results refering to the Nicholas Logothetis (born circa 1980) who is a leader of the Concordia Summit and the Libra Group. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: The talk page of the article indicates that he actually spells his name "Nickolas" rather than "Nicholas", and this seems to be borne out by things like this: [27] and other things on Google including GoogleBooks. The requested move was never done though because the requester (who created this article) did not bother to provide any evidence. In any case, I still can't find any independent notability for this statistician and management consultant. Softlavender (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a resume host. No claim to notability asserted. MB 03:18, 29 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 deleted . Materialscientist (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seneed[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of this person existing, aside from the FB page. Zero evidence of notability and is an unsourced BLP. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. I could not locate any additional reelable sources. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 06:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7, there is not the slightest claim of significance in either "Seneed is a famous nepali Kollywood playback singer" (Previous revision of Seneed) or the updated "Seneed is a Top nepali hacker in the world" (Previous revision of Seneed). Comparing the name in the infobox "Seneed (Deenes) Acharya" with the names of the now sock blocked editors Senz acharya (talk · contribs) and Dinesh acharya (talk · contribs) this is just an autobio. — Sam Sailor 20:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per A7, I see no credible claim of significance. GAB^gab 20:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The A1/A3 tagging here was off: with ((Infobox musical artist)) looking like this ((Infobox musical artist | name = Seneed | background = solo_singer | birth_name = Seneed(Deenes) Acharya | birth_date = 09 December 1999 | birth_place = [[Dharan]], [[Nepal]], | occupation = [[Playback singer]] | years_active = 2015-present | website = https://facebook.com/seneed | instruments = vocals, guitar )) there was enough info to identify the page as a BLP. The sock removed the speedy, and nom then added BLPPROD. But BLPPROD only applies when the article contains no sources in any form. Adam9007 correctly removed the BLPPROD but then added a PROD saying "No evidence of notability." Nom then endorsed the PROD with ((proposed deletion endorsed|1=article is a [[WP:BLPPROD|biography of a living person with no sources]])) using Twinkle, but it should just have been the bare ((proposed deletion endorsed)). Three minutes later, the endorsed PROD gets overwritten with this nomination. The article is typical autobio stuff probably written in good faith by a young person who knows Wikipedia is free to edit for everyone, but knows nothing about our inclusion criteria. And it should have been tagged with A7 to begin with. — Sam Sailor 20:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam I'll note that the A1/A3 tagging was when the article did not have anything more than a mostly blank infobox. It was removed after the user added info that made the A1/A3 tagging irrelevant, which I do not object to, I agree with you that A7 would also have been appropriate and I should have added it. The BLP prod of mine was I admit a mistake, as I did not see the facebook reference in the infobox until afterwards, and I decided to bring it here once I did notice the mistake. Apologies for the confusion, and I'll write a note explaining on the creator's talk page. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes count as content (and it was not mostly blank), so A3 was not appropriate anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, the user has been banned as a sock now, so no point in me clarifying anything for them at this point, unfortunately. I should have simply A7ed this from the beginning. Oh well, live and learn. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever. Adam9007 (talk) 03:05, 29 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Livingstone (composer)[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Perhaps best known for Formula One video games soundtracks, but if so, he isn't even mentioned in the article, so no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 05:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I similarly cannot find any WP:GNG passing coverage although this is made particularly difficult by the existence of Ian Livingstone CBE. From their imdb, they appear to be a modestly successful composer with little coverage outside of that one interview that is referenced in the article. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:17, 5 February 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Seed of Yggdrasill[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. The article's creator, User:Ladyofthelabyrinth, is likely the book's author Maria Kvilhaug (as she has no other Wikipedia contributions). The only source given is a minor neopagan blog, and apart from that the only other link is to a neo-Nazi radio show (Red Ice Radio). So I don't think this book is notable. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book would pass NBOOK. It exists and can be purchased, but there are no reviews or coverage in any places that Wikipedia would consider a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:57, 30 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 space. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists' March on Washington[edit]

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

This article is about an event that (according to the article) is not certain to occur. It also fails other tests in the policy about what Wikipedia is not, for example, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are plenty of other articles about Protests against Donald Trump. I don't yet see the need for a standalone article for a march that both is not certain to occur, and has not yet met the notability criteria for an event. All we have right now is a big group of people joining a Facebook group. Gfcvoice (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organizers have said that they're releasing the info on when/where/etc. this coming week. So that will put a lot of the WP:CRYSTAL to bed. Otherwise, check out the sources out there. This clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. The scope, coverage, and depth are all there. Duration will be as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The organizers may or may not follow through with that promise about an event that may or may not occur. There's no need for this article until then. All we have right now is a big group of people joining a Facebook group. Gfcvoice (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - And waiting two days is a problem, why? Monday is less than a week after the initiation of this deletion discussion. WP:CRYSTAL refers to unverifiable speculation, and while much of this is speculation at the current time, it can be traced to reliable sources. I expect that sourced coverage will only increase come the information release on Monday. Dustin (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TOOSOON. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 06:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the information seems like it will soon be released. Also, even if it isn't, a proposed plan is still news and I believe is worth of wikipedia as shown by the citations. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now Violates WP:CRYSTAL policy to create articles on planned events like this unless they're something established like an annual sports championship. Give it some time, and if this happens, I can see no argument against keeping it then. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against reinstitution when/if it comes off (as I fervently hope it will, and with a bang). What would happen to this article if it didn't happen - sheepish retroactive acknowledgement of WP:CRYSTAL and deletion? If it fizzles, it wasn't worth an article; if it works, it's sure to deserve one. Wait until then.- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
zomg censorship!!!!1!!1 just kidding! Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump for now, as it's still a legitimate search, unless/until enough information is released to make an actual article. ansh 666 17:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as concrete information has now emerged, keep as a notable planned event. ansh 666 22:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as noted above 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good idea. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs)

Keep – No need to rush it when an imminent information release is planned just two days from now and this subject is already being given coverage by multiple major news outlets. Absolute worst case scenario, redirect to Protests against Donald Trump#Scientists' March. Dustin (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it happens *and* gets coverage. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX to raise awareness about a particular cause or planned event, no matter how noble it may be. WP was recently turned into a planning calendar by organizers of Donald Trump inauguration protests and the 2017 Women's March, with a detailed list of planned locations and times worldwide before any of those protests actually happened. Let's not make this standard procedure and focus on writing an encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 19:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space until it actually occurs. MB298 (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has already received extensive coverage; will be notable (or at least merger-worthy ) even if it doesn't come off. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space and redirect Let's keep the work (which is referenced) that's gone into the article so far so that when it occurs, there's already a good background ready for the article. Place a redirect to the page of protests against POTUS. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rapidly delete of Move to user space . It is WP:TOSOON and is as yet mere WP:PROMO. It can come back to mainspace when there is 1.) a firm date. 2.) a parade permit 3.) ongoing, significant coverage. As present, this is an idea in gestation [28].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be consistent. Experienced editors are aware that not only protest movements, but businesses, singers, political candidates and others attempt to use Wikipedia for WP:PROMO. The fact that I support scientists who call this administration's defunding of research on climate change dangerous does not change the fact that WP:NOTPROMO. Standards need to be held constant, just as my obligation to judge an article submitted to an academic journal on merit is constant even when I find the results of a paper sent for review ideologically congenial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space per MB298 and Megalibrarygirl's comments. Can be restarted when event actual occurs per WP:CBALL. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: Would you be willing to request a move to user space? You (and others) could continue to update and bring it back to mainspace as soon as you have WP:RS coverage of firm plans (firm date; public event permit from D.C. Police). I'll be first in line backing you against any attempt to delet at that point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @E.M.Gregory: I wasn't the one who came up with the idea, but yes I do feel this is a good compromise that works for all. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @E.M.Gregory: How does one "request a move to user space"? I'd happily have it moved to my userspace as opposed to deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the page were to be moved at all, it would be more ideal to move it to draftspace, as has already been mentioned. Dustin (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, move to page creator's draft space.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm referring to the actual draft namespace, i.e. those pages prefixed by Draft:. Dustin (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space Its honestly just a bit too soon to have an article on the scientists' march. However, this article could realistically become notable soon after deletion. I believe a move to draft space is therefore the best solution, since the article will not need to be recreated from scratch in the event it achieves notability. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This meets WP:GNG with in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources, including Forbes, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Hill, National Geographic, CNBC, Newsday, The Guardian, CNN, and the Los Angeles Times. Dates for the marches will be announced within the week. While this article is about an expected future event, it doesn't violate WP:CRYSTALBALL as it is notable and almost certain to take place. On Facebook, the event currently has 287,809 likes and 300,631 follows. The Twitter for the DC event has 288,000 followers. This topic also meets WP:EVENT as it has widespread impact and enduring historical significance, as covered by diverse sources. This also meets WP:GEOSCOPE with events planned in most major US cities. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it's not merely about a planned event, but a protest movement that is building momentum. The planning itself is a notable phenomenon with a great deal of coverage in the mainstream media, which, through interviews with scientists is revealing the nature of the conflict between the Trump administration and the scientific community. It's a breaking story, about an ongoing situation that a great number of people are watching unfold. It makes sense that it be covered on Wikipedia, which updates notable events in real time. It is one of the main things that sets Wikipedia apart from other encyclopedias, and is one of the things Wikipedians do best. I'm surprised there isn't an article specifically on the EPA gag order. Well, at least we have this one. The Transhumanist 15:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This march has been gaining in popularity and it is now being reported on by dozens of major news outlets. The date is to be announced this week. Plantlady223 (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's plenty of new coverage out, that's a Forbes article from today. The march has been renamed "March for Science" (I will rename the article if kept), so that's the better search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See United States presidential election, 2020. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
March is set for April 22. That's another source to verify GNG and suggest TOOSOON doesn't apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially since details continue to emerge. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless some announcement to cancel the march comes out. With something this likely, deletion just gives someone the chore of rewriting it. Connor Behan (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event does not exist except in the sense of media coverage -- people walking around somewhere on a given day is not noteworthy, but the fact it is reported by the press is. Even if it were cancelled, that would merely provide more sources to cite! And the sources, discussing scientists' political role and the role of facts and so forth, may be central to understanding the history of this era. Wnt (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Incubate and salt until 22 April 2017. There is no deadline. If the current coverage were notable, the article would be called The anticipation of what might become known as the Scientists' March on Washington or March for Science. This is a news event, not something that we already know the world will care about next year or in five years. Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Unscintillating (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There's absolutely no reason this can't have an article before the day it happens, much like Super Bowl LI has an article before tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 4 February 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. Consensus is that this school does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The School of Adventure, Mysore[edit]

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

Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Some results on a simple Google search pulled up The School of Adventure in Scotland. Meatsgains (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional spam. Content belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of GNG Spiderone 22:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a school; not notable; no reliable sources found in my search. Lourdes 18:07, 4 February 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. Clear consensus to keep the article. (non-admin closure) Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 01:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clear advertising regardless of the supposed "Criticism" section because it's all still what they themselves would advertise and the history shows come-and-go accounts all suggesting it was clear advertising, nothing genuinely better has been found and there's nothing suggesting this isn't anything else but a business listing, hence violating our policies alone. Also, it's clear advertising when an article cares to go in such specifics as "profiling the company executives and their plans". Also, it's troubling when the only controversy that can be offered is mere "licensing concerns and acting against licensing regulations" (nearly any company will have such concerns, especially when involved in the specific field for it) and such, since that's an easy attempt to mirror a "controversy" section yet still counter it with the other existing PR, and elusive PR is one of the main things our policies never accept, because it's a blatant misuse. This is the article now and that's exactly what's stayed in the same since these accounts here started involving themselves, including with logged-out IPs, a presumption of making it "heavily involved by several". For example, before anyone asks, I'll examine the current sources:

1-14 are all clear business announcements and this is unsurprising considering the company is the sole author here
(Now, from the newly added sources): 1 is a clear business announcement about new plans, including name-drops
2 is an unconvincing "consumers are concerned"
3 is another one of the "company legal concerns"
4 is involving another company, and comparing it, complete with clear company quotes
5 is the same
6 is another company announcement with clear quotes, including its beginning headline statements
7 is again about licensing legalities
8 is a clear announcement, complete with republishings of the company's plans for its own business

If this is the best we offer for improvements, there's not only still nothing for our basic standards as they themselves cite business announcements, interviews, quotes, company finances and plans as all unacceptable, and worse, when we involve WP:What Wikipedia is not. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. See source examples below. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Saudi Employment Goals Get Lift from Uber, Careem". Voice of America. January 8, 2017. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
Everington, John (August 31, 2016). "Abu Dhabi limousine drivers using Careem app worried despite restart of services". The National. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
Ashfaq, Unushay (June 27, 2016). "Careem hits a bump in the road as allegations of harassment emerge". The Express Tribune. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
"Uber-clone vows safe, affordable ride. Should you Careem around Karachi, Lahore?". Dawn. February 15, 2016. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
Alkhalisi, Zahraa (December 19, 2016). "Uber's Mideast rival Careem is worth $1 billion after Saudis pump in cash". CNN Money. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
"Here's Why Uber Is Facing Pressure in Dubai". Fortune. October 4, 2016. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
Kharpal, Arjun; Gamble, Hadley (June 21, 2016). "Careem, a Middle East Uber rival, calls its drivers 'captains'. Here's why". CNBC. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
Cuthbert, Olivia (November 18, 2016). "Jordan cracks down on Uber and Careem as congestion clogs its capital". The Guardian. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
Swaminathan, R (August 29, 2016). "Careem, Uber suspend their services in Abu Dhabi". Firstpost. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
"Careem vs Uber: two titans duke it out on the streets of Karachi". The Express Tribune.

Comment and analysis - It's important to note that half of the sources listed above are the same ones analyzed above so, with the concerns listed in they being only published and republished business announcements, they're not valid for our policies. The few different ones here are still clear similar mirrors, such as the particular ones that still only focus with the same events, such as licensing or employee concerns or legalities, none of which bestow a company notability, or else any company's mere legal cases would inherit them an article. One, in particular, the TheGuardian, is simply a simple news story part of their business column, and that's natural given any newspaper will publish any other relevant stories, that's not an automatic notability factor at all. Given, this finishes what ever else sourcing was offered, it still emphasizes the fact there exists no convincing substance. In fact, WP:CORPDEPTH itself states sources must be independent, significant, substantial and not simply based from primary sources, which these still are, so not only are they not valid for a simple guideline, they're certainly no match for our policy WP:NOT, which explicitly allows deletion of any company webhosting. Not only was WP:NOT the first policy explicitly targeted for such company webhosting, WP:CORPDEPTH itself states that such articles can in fact be negotiated for deletion instead, if it best serves Wikipedia, which in this case, the clear company-motivated advertising seals it. Next, WP:NOT itself states articles shall not be copyedited if such is outweighed by excessive advertising, which in this case, is, because of the unconfessed COI, but then also because the sources are only announcements and mere news stories, none of it amounted to substance, hence such copyediting would only amount to shoehorning advertising. For example, "The company enjoys pleasing its customers" cannot be changed into anything else because the message is still clear advertising as is the case here, given the advertising far outweighed anything "controversial" their employees added here. The fact the article was still unconvincing after a few improvements is enough for deletion alone. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More sources are available in addition to the samples listed above. See below for more. Yet more are available in addition to those listed below. Clearly meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources provided herein are news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Every source is not automatically PR or advertising as some sort of peculiar default. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

"The race is on for Careem in the Middle East". Arabian Post. January 27, 2017. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
Thomas, Aby Sam (January 13, 2016). "Careem: It's Full Speed Ahead For This Middle East Startup". Entrepreneur. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
Farid, Doaa (March 5, 2016). "High demand pushes Careem Egypt to amend price of service". Daily News Egypt. Retrieved January 28, 2017.

Keep Passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy of ours automatically sets GNG as a confirmed guarantee of notability? Our policies currently state GNG is never such a compromise against our pillar policies. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - Examining the sources above are still clear business announcements, complete with the DailyNews which is focusing with their pricing for customers automatically unacceptable in our policies given the sheer non-independence, and our policies set these examples clearly as they always have. The other source above that link is a clear business announcements focusing with their company activities, so the fact this is still all existing shows there's nothing but the "motivating their own attention" plans. Next, the Entrepreneur is a clear "Story of a new business" and it's complete with company life stories and quotes, something as simple as WP:CORPDEPTH is clear about not accepting as sourcing.
For example take this from the CNN link suggested above as "significant": It has about 150,000 drivers (or captains as Careem likes to call them) and expects the latest investment will allow it to create one million jobs by 2018....Sheikha says the company is not profitable yet but hopes to be in the next two years.... (This itself violates WP:CORPDEPTH because such trivial business information has no place in this encyclopedia, as it is, only about 20% of the news article ever actually mentions the company, and what I quoted here is nearly over half of it)
The DailyNewsEgypt especially still violates WP:CORPDEPTH because it focuses with pricing, something else WP:NOT explicitly states that violates our policies. With this, all of the sources explicitly focus with routine announcements and notices, something both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT confirm as unacceptable
Similar violates are then in the VoiceofAmerica which states Uber and Careem require their drivers to use cars that are less than 3 years old. Uber works with financing companies in Saudi Arabia to help its drivers buy cars....The use of the app for booking a car also allows a passenger to select a particular driver, and some believe that the use of smartphone technology brings a better class of driver....difference in price between a journey with Uber or Careem....employ more than the 65,000 nationals....Careem, however, is developing a subsidized rides program for low-income working Saudi women....both Careem and Uber say most drivers work part time, keeping government jobs.... None of this satisfies our policies because it's clear announcements and mentions
Now take the DailyNews Careem offers, like advance and pre-scheduled rides, weekly pickups, and better cash/card integration....Careem offers, like advance and pre-scheduled rides, weekly pickups, and better cash/card integration to Careem....Careem offers, like advance and pre-scheduled rides, weekly pickups, and better cash/card integration.... The article itself not only has this as supposed 'information', it then says it came from a local tech blog (thus not satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH either)
Now take DAWN, which says Careem cites the total cost of the trip, which you can either book immediately (base rate Rs150) or schedule for a later time (base rate Rs250) in the day....The app instantly sends a profile and photograph of the driver — called the 'Captain' — who is on his way to pick you up....Details include the model, colour and license plate of the car so you can keep an eye out for him. Customers are also given an option to track the ride, presumably in an effort to make users feel secure.... charging Rs220 for a one-way ride between 11am and 4pm during the weekdays and Rs320 after 4pm. However, the promotion applies to a 12km ride and those who want to travel further pay Rs25/km....got an email detailing the distance and bill, explaining what the original bill would have been without this deal (hold for company photo)....the service was offering a promo code and flat rate of Rs200 for a ride to the festival. The car, a latest Toyota Corolla model....Careem was founded in 2012 in Dubai, with the simple mission to provide convenient, reliable and comfortable transport services to customers. It has since grown to cover 26 cities - currently operational....It expects to - claims its dedicated efforts to.... (As it is, the article's bottom states the company can be asked to review anything, thus overall still violating WP:CORPDEPTH, because the publication or author could've been enticed for such specifics, since no one else knows the company finances better than the company itself)

Our encyclopedia is specifically targeted for genuine subjects with genuine news, not something the company influenced and paid for itself since only their own websites is suitable for that. Another common sign showing this is the blatant fact all of the news above are still, as earlier, in clear times the company's financials quarters we're starting, see "January 2016, "March 2016" and then "January 2016" and we've established that as a clear attempt to still start their own attention given it's not naturally occurring, and this itself violates WP:CORPDEPTH. Simply because the Entrepreneur Middle East News Chief listed his name is not automatically making it acceptable as WP:CORPDEPTH itself still makes it clear there's never such compromising, and examining this exact source carefully shows the label "Source: Careem" (especially conveniently located next to each large paragraph), sealing the case it's still not independent. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Northamerica has provided enough evidence to clearly demonstrate that meets WP:ORG. I'm puzzled by the nominator's convoluted efforts to try wikilawyer this at length. Sufficient refs are there Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ORG is not a policy and has never been a fundamental policy pillar. SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NA1Ks sources, Meets GNG, The promotional tone can be easily fixed etc, easy keep. –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are your solutions for improving then? Because the history shows improvements were made but advertising still stayed, that alone suggests there's no hopes for our policies. Also, GNG is not a pillar policy and it states it in the first words "GNG is a suggestive guideline, not policy". SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It is not stated anywhere on the WP:GNG page "GNG is a suggestive guideline, not policy". When quoting notability guideline pages, it's important to be accurate, because misquotes are misleading. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is indeed a guideline, not policy. Guidelines are by their very nature intended to interpreted flexibly. See the headnote for WP:N "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The actual text of that page is if read in detail incoherent and contradictory "notable or worthy of notice" does not actually require any subtantial sources, just that the subject would be worth someone writing a source somewhere--but over the years we have agreed not to interpret it in that extremely loose manner. . The language is obsolete for the usual reason at WP:no matter how bad it is, we would never agree just how to change it. And also the GNG says "presumed to be notable:" any presumption can be defeated by showing that any other consideration makes it not notable.

What's more, the next sentence on the guideline says "and it is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." NOT, unlike the GNG, is policy, and NOT DIRECTORY and NOT INDISCRIMINATE and NOT PROMOTION are the 3 key policies in most of the debates here. (as for this particular article, I haven't yet decided. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have what ... 5 million articles here ? .... so we're not gonna be able to spot promotional content in them all, GNG may well be a guideline however its something that is heavily followed here –Davey2010^Talk 08:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that when quoting content about guideline pages using quotation marks, such as stating "...and it states it in the first words "GNG is a suggestive guideline, not policy"" as above, this is misleading, because this phrase is not on the page at all. Content within quotation marks when citing a page should be verbatim. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I agree with the nom that the original references did not meet WP:RS as they were not "independent" (most were advertorials and relied almost exclusively on "interviews") but a search has shown many references that are independent (many on the Uber/Careem "taking-taxi-jobs" controversy, others on bringing women into the workforce). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such as which ones and what number of them? It would help to show which ones. SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 1 February 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 Marvel Comics characters: G. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Ginsberg[edit]

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

This doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, this article lacks any sources or references whatsoever. Longevitydude (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources/references that establish notability can be found and added to the article. TouhouFan9801 (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. BOZ (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the idea, I for one would happily consider a merge. Longevitydude (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BOZ. That list exists for characters like this. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above discussion. Subject is more suited for the list rather than a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. The character is certainly not notable enough for her own article, but as she's already listed in the appropriate section of the master Marvel Comics character list, merging the content there is an appropriate action. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. I'm not sure I see the utility of a relist in this case; I think it's clear what the consensus is! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and close per everything J Milburn just said. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 31 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 to Mur Lafferty. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Playing for Keeps (novel)[edit]

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

Long under-referenced article about novel, within no indication of notability. Can't find reviews in the normal places, and doesn't seem to be broadly critiqued Sadads (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This book won a Parsec award for Best Speculative Fiction Story (Long Form) in 2008. ([29]) The author was one of the creators of those awards. I don't know how significant they are. Gab4gab (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it kind of difficult because now even if the award can give notability, it's an award that was given to one of its founders. The frustrating thing here is that there is some mention of the book here and there, but I'm running into situations like this one where the coverage that could be used has been put out by people who know the author, making it a primary source since they know her and have an interest in making sure people know about and read/listen to the book. I'm leaning towards just redirecting this to the author's page. The only independent RS I'm finding only mention the work in passing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: That was the problem I was running into: I have tried to find sources for this article twice, and haven't found anything substantial.Sadads (talk) 00:34, 31 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Roller Hockey Pro Division[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was a major professional league in the sport of roller hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a league. It is a division within a league. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a league, it was setup as a pyramid like European sports. They were each separate leagues under one league banner. Admittedly the terminology is confusing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or very limited merge to Major League Roller Hockey if any of this can be referenced. This is mostly insufficiently notable sportscruft. It may deserve a short paragraph in the main article but not an article of its own. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What was the justification for relisting this for a 3rd time? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator is being completely disruptive with all these AfDs. WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players. Please stop. You are being completely disruptive and need to knock it off. Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Agree with DanielRigal. Does not deserve an article of its own as this is mostly not notable sportscruft. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:23, 5 February 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. Discussion about reverting to a different version of the article and other aspects of the article can be discussed further on its talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Sabet[edit]

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

Doesn't have anything particularly notable to his name, most of the current sources are dead and/or only give a passing mention, and overall the article feels a little promotional, disregarding the part about the jail sentence he received. Layla ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\з= ( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) =ε/̵͇̿̿/’̿’̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ 14:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in German are just as valid as sources in English, and previous versions of the article, such as this one had some sources in English including a New York Times profile. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone thinks that the first clause of this statement doesn't make sense, I would point out that the nominator changed the nomination statement after there had been some replies, rather than following the customary procedure of striking. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Layla, the remover: Note that per WP:GNG, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course sources in German are just as good as ones in English, and giving that as a reason for deletion is absurd. However, a check of a sample of the sources, both in the current version of the article and in the October 2010 version linked by the IP editor, suggest that they are all either dead links or sources which mention Hossein Sabet, but do not give substantial coverage. For example, the New York Times article is not a "profile" of October 2010: it is an article about the island of Kish; it includes a little coverage of a hotel owned by Hossein Sabet, and in the course of doing so mentions him several times, but it is not substantially about him, which calling it a "profile" might suggest. Since I have not checked all of the references, I am not committing myself to either "keep" or "delete", but on the basis of the sample of references which I have looked at, it looks unlikely that there is sufficient evidence of notability. I hope to come back when I have time to check more thoroughly. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as sources in German are acceptable, so are sources that are properly cited but no longer available on the Internet, such as those from Die Zeit and The Globe and Mail cited in that earlier version of the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of transparency I have to say that I am the editor who added sources in 2010. I'm pretty sure that those that are no longer available online had significant coverage of the subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I am the person currently editing from IP address 86.17.222.157. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This edit by a SPA removed the reliable NY Times source and introduced BLP violations. The nomination that followed by 25 minutes suggests a connection between this SPA and the nominator. Even without this connection, the nomination fails to show WP:BEFORE D1 workmanship on Google books to explain the 1989 book Iran: from royal dictatorship to theocracy which has the snippet, "The businesses of two leading industrialists, Habibollah Elghanian and Hossein Sabet, were closed down, and both were imprisoned on the charges of profiteering." Other notes that the nomination fails to make are that there are Persian and German [30] Wikipedia articles. Also, the "Der Abend" link in the article has a proper target in [31], which also has sources. Unscintillating (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT in fact applies because it's clear business advertising and that all alone is always a convincing basis because we as an encyclopedia have never accepted advertising and, as long we're an independent encyclopedia, we never will. The SK comment has no policy-backed basis and nothing else to suggest there's a genuine speedy need. This article has clear signs of WP:NOT violations because it's only business-focused, including such specifics as business plans. As it is, the comments about the sourcing above themselves show no one has been able to find suitable sourcing hence nothing to suggest an accepted article, and in this, it violates our non-negotiable policies, these exact which maintain Wikipedia itself. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 4 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Yeomans[edit]

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

Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. There must be reliable sources about the subject, and not just passing mentions, in order to satisfy notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By common sense measures, she is a notable athlete for accomplishments at her age and has recently achieved some level of fame through a nytimes article covering Masters events. Comprehensive list of achievements is a valuable resource.140.247.87.87 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to said article? While there is one in the ([[32]], I believe she is only mentioned in one sentence, which doesn't qualify on its own. I'm honestly quite shocked that she doesn't have more coverage, but based on the searches I have done, it does seem hard to argue that she doesn't meet WP:GNG-MATThematical (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I'm a bit shocked that this person does not meet WP:GNG, but given the sports person is from an English Speaking country, my suspission is that extensive articles do not exist for this person, given that we can't find them in basic internet searches. If talk can produce the forementioned NY times article I would change my mind. But until then its a delete for me. MATThematical (talk) 06:52, 29 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. Sandstein 21:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Tambourine[edit]

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

Non-notable TV show, fails WP:GNG, probably WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:TVSHOW.

All sources sources in the article are unreliable: WP:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources#Considered Unreliable. I couldn't find any reliable sources.

Soompi typically has a link to their original source at the bottom of the article. In this case, it's to a Korean article on enews24, which is run by CJ E&M: http://enews24.tving.com/news/article.asp?nsID=1125302 I also believe this is a piece on Chosun announcing the new show: http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/11/10/2016111001174.html I'm not fluent in Korean, though, so I'm not 100% sure; I'm basing this on the general gist of the Google translations. -Mongoose22 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest redirecting to Mnet (TV channel)#Entertainment. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for sources in Korean? Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Siuenti (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at sources cited by the Korean and Chinese language Wikipedias. It's just ratings and a handful articles. I don't read Korean so I can't say if it's in-depth, or if sources exist elsewhere. If someone thinks there are enough Korean sources to pass GNG, they should say what those sources are, per WP:MUSTBESOURCES. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[33][34]--Jerre Jiang 　Talk　 12:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soompi is unreliable per the WikiProject Korea list I linked to. Kpopfighting, which I don't know anything about to say whether it's reliable or not, has only three stories. Each is only a few paragraphs long and seems to focus on people who have appeared on the show, not the show itself. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[35]--Jerre Jiang 　Talk　 09:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:TVSHOW. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:28, 5 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Gilman[edit]

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

Somewhat promotional article not based on reliable secondary sources. A Google News search for coverage of Gilman is complicated by the numerous false positives due to articles written by Gilman herself; the best I found was this piece of local news (it originally appeared "in the New York edition" of the NYT), plus this book review that provides quotes, but scant details about either Gilman or her work. I don't think that's enough to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Removing all content without reliable sources would turn the article into a stub of one or two sentences. Huon (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I don't feel strongly about it. This wedding announcement in the New York Times is another source. I agree that the Google News search yields a lot of hits....it really yields lots and lots of hits, which says something. --do ncr am 23:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As doncram said, she and her book have lots of coverage. Article needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the source listed above is a local announcement anyone can ask and pay for, especially for localized, and she's not significantly held in libraries with a high of only a few, along with barely 2 in 1 library; nothing else better is available and none of this amounts to actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is emphatically not true that "anyone can pay and ask for" a wedding announcement in the New York Times.In days of yore, these announcements were restricted to the social register. In our slightly more democratic age, any couple can pitch the Times in what is now a highly selective process. The rich, famous, and well-connected are still selected, but so are up-and-comers form non-notable families (20-somethings with Rhodes scholarships or appellate court clerkships), and some people with particularly interesting backstories are also selected. We all need to try not to make assertions where we do not know the facts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the announcements are useful in an article because the Times fact checks them so carefully. But they are a slender reed on which to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Took a 2nd look at Gilman. Her first book get widespread attention, not only reviews, but excerpted published in major media (like Newsweek). She is a widely published literary critic, but also here: [36] is a long interview with her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) above - certainly a notable enough author for a page. Garchy (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 28 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:MUSICBIO#6 which includes a note specifically stating that in small ensembles all members are presumed reasonably prominent. Just claiming that a certain number of reliable sources are required (which has no basis in policy) is not sufficient and neither is claiming sources are failing WP:RS without further explanation. Both the currently used Blabbermouth.net and Metal Hammer, which operates TeamRock.com appear to be journalistic endeavors and this discussion included no reason to think otherwise. So Why 15:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Barker[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No individual coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 14:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 14:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he was a drummer for several notable bands. The cruft is easy to remove. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording is "who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Where are the write-ups to demonstrate the subject's prominence? Fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I easily removed the cruft. I note that he played at Metalmania. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think reasonable minds can differ here. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because you are not familiar with the subject it does not mean that it should be removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about my knowledge, but complete lack of sources on the subject. In other words, jut because you can't find sources for the subject doesn't mean we should keep it. I trust that the closing admin will see the complete lack of argument on your part. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't see this failing GNG. Barker is a pretty noteworthy drummer in extreme metal circles. — Richard BB 10:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet there are none. Please provide five (5) that meet RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO, 'member of two or more notable ensembles'. Original drummer for Cradle of Filth and per Sonor.com and TeamRock.com drummed for Dimmu Borgir, Lock Up and Gorgoroth among others. Insisting on specifically 5 (five) sources isn't a reasonable standard to avoid deletion. Deleting the article wouldn't make the encylopedia better, which has to be the basic test. Mortee (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. Find three. The threshold is "sources" and the problem is most sources on niche performers like this fail RS, so I set the bar high. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 6 February 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:V takes precedence over notability disputes. Because nobody can find third-party sources, and the only source cited was the school's own website, which is a dead link, the school is unverifiable. Sandstein 21:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern English Secondary Boarding school,Wokil Tole,Janakpur[edit]

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

A secondary school with no claim of notability. I was unable to find any good sources from Google. Fails GNG and should be redirected or merged per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. — Yash^talk stalk 07:19, 17 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)} 07:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is named as a secondary school, which is usually a high school. However, the article states it includes "lower school and middle school." I could find zero independent sources to indicate that this school exists. This is odd for a school that is claimed to have a thousand students. There also don't seem to be any notable former students. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Jacknstock, in India, secondary school ranks lower to a high school (which is referred to as "higher secondary school"). Secondary school is usually from grade 7-10 and high school (or higher secondary) for grade 11 and 12. Nepal follows the same as far as I know, so it isn't actually a high school. Secondary school is an equivalent of a middle school. — Yash^talk stalk 03:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've reminded me, I think I've heard that before. Based on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it makes it even less likely to be kept, even if there was any evidence it existed. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added official website as reference and done some necessary changes. --Kaulder (contribs | talk) 07:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry Kaulder but the official website doesn't help in establishing notability of the topic. It only proves that the school exists. Per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, articles on schools that are below the level of a high school are generally deleted unless there are substantial sources out there which help in determining the subject's notability. Coverage in reliable independent sources will be needed especially since this is not even a high school, and I am unable to find any. — Yash^talk stalk 07:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright ! I am also unable to find any reliable independent sources. Unfortunately, delete the article. --Kaulder (contribs | talk) 07:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Not sure where the claims that this is not a "high school" come from. Of course it is. Any school that educates at secondary level (generally, up to 16, which is the school-leaving age in many countries) is a secondary school. The definition of "high school" claimed above is purely an American one. We have always considered any school that educates up to 16 to meet the criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, where I studied, secondary school was an equivalent of middle school - an intermediate between primary and higher secondary school (also known as high school). Although the defination of "high school" varies from region to region. But education in Nepal states that "Grades 11 and 12 are considered as higher secondary level" - the same as it was where I studied and I saw a similar pattern. Best, — Yash^talk stalk 12:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the level of schooling, there is no verification. I couldn't find anything, and neither could the creator. Without reliable sources, we can't be sure of anything stated in the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, with no independent coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there is currently an RfC related to this and if successful would mean that existing is enough to warrant an article. Laurdecl ^talk 23:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. We have usually counted grade 10 in India asa secondaryschool. Query: isgrade 10 sufficient to prepare for university? If not, we may have to revisit that point. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:48, 29 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. sufficient consensus. Relisting would give the same result DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Langdon[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Non-noteable comedian. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GNews returns nothing beyond him finding the haunted house in Central Otago. Hence non-notable. Schwede 66 18:07, 2 February 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. Sandstein 21:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan timeline of Romanian royal consorts[edit]

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

Consorts are marginally notable. Their lifespans aren't. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I totally agree. There is no evidence of any reliable sources covering this specific topic. I would also oppose a merge. Spiderone 11:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything on the internet that doesn't fit Spiderone's view of the world.Laurentiu Popa (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable topic. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to King of the Romanians. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 29 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 Withdrawn. I thought NPR is an unreliable source and many editors think it's reilable. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 00:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Tate (musician)[edit]

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

PROD removed claiming the sources are present but no independent third party reviews. Fails MUSICBIO and GNG as long as my PROD stands. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 01:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 01:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]; Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 01:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]; Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative search: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep. First of all, subject is a member of a notable band, and has a solo release, thus he does not fall clearly into a case of deletion pursuant to WP:MUSICOUTCOMES, so if no sources were available to merit a standalone article, a possible alternative to deletion - part of our deletion policy - would be to boldly WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT per WP:ATD-R as a categorized ((R from member)). Uncontroversial deletion via ProD was out of the question, at least. Nominator says that "no independent third party reviews [are present]", but that is not correct. We have

Bylined article by notable Bob Boilen published by notable NPR: Boilen, Bob (August 18, 2016). "On A Break From San Fermin, Allen Tate Sings His Own Song". npr.org. NPR.
and we have a long, bylined article in Paste: Zimmerman, Lee (October 28, 2016). "A Satisfying Sleepwalk: Allen Tate on Life Within and Without San Fermin". Paste. pastemagazine.com.

and both were present at the time of nomination.

WP:BEFORE asks us to be sure to perform as the minimum search expected, a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search. Searching for "Allen Tate" sleepwalker brings up multiple hits, e.g.

Bylined article in Village Voice: Schuh, Becca (12 January 2017). "San Fermin's Allen Tate on Solitude and His Solo Debut 'Sleepwalker'". Village Voice. Retrieved 29 January 2017.
Bylined article in USA Today: Scott, Nate (24 October 2016). "Album Stream: Allen Tate (of San Fermin) gives us his debut solo LP, 'Sleepwalker' - For The Win". For The Win.

Sorry, but WP:VAGUEWAVE is not a valid argument for deletion, especially since there's little suggesting that the sources were vetted. The sources provided and the further existence of suitable sources are what we use to determine if notability is met, and WP:GNG/WP:BASIC is met here. . — Sam Sailor 16:10, 30 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:G4. An almost verbatim article to the one that was deleted per the previous AfD discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Viadero[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 should apply. However, the tag keep getting removed by IP's with no explanation given. The delete rationale from last September of not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT still holds. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:19, 28 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 to Data Design Interactive. Sandstein 21:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Action Girlz Racing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been nominated before. I don't know what the standards were for games then, but this has very, very poor coverage, none of which is really in-depth anyway; the "deepest" thing is a few paragraphs of review on IGN. So, delete for lack of notability; no reliable sources with in-depth discussion. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I loved reading the review from IGN, and the fact that the game appears to be about as relevant as a bad smelling fart, and about as well liked, it does have significant third party sources referencing the game, which would appear to make it meet the GNG. Fbifriday (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontroversial redirect to its developer, Data Design Interactive. The sources in the article are no bueno: GameFAQs, MobyGames, etc. are unreliable video game sources, though they can sometimes point to where sources can be found. The only reliable coverage of this game is the IGN review. So move the ref to the parent article and cover the game there summary style. There is no sourced-based rationale for keeping it separate. czar 20:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Data Design Interactive. I've gone through Goodsearch, Mobygames, GameFAQs, Metacritic, and GameSpot, and turned up nothing of use beyond the IGN review. With some real deep digging we might find a bare minimum of sources for the article, but the game is one of many bargain bin titles released for the PC, PlayStation 2, Wii, and every other top-selling games platform, and it's just not possible for Wikipedia to produce decent articles on even half of them.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:36, 2 February 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. Sandstein 21:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa-Mari Moen Jünge[edit]

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 5 February 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. I would normally !vote on an AfD like this, but I found I couldn't decide which way to !vote. One one hand, we certainly do not want to encourage this way of writing articles,but it seems clear the company is notable and the article is reasonably objective. Timmyshin. perhaps you could adopt it. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fujian SBS Zipper Science & Technology[edit]

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

Borderline WP:PROMO, only primary sources are cited, lack of reliable sources. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems to smell sockpuppetish, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mokezhilao. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep While I agree the author is a sockpuppet, this is a very notable company. Largest zipper company in China and second largest in the world, see [37]. Also the sponsor of the basketball club Fujian Sturgeons. Timmyshin (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 25 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, 28 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Shanu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable lawyer. Most of the references are primary references or blogs. The only notable news reference is the solitary case of RTI of CBSE marksheets, that too covers the case not the subject, hence should be categorised as a passing reference. ChunnuBhai (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar is a one of the most consistent RTI Activists in India. He is a notable name among the young lawyers based in Delhi. In my opinion, more references can be added by editing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.30.11.109 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the only notable news reference is the case of CBSE answer-sheets under RTI. Kindly consider going through the following references.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.30.3.199 (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2017

References

Delete - known locally, but just not notable. Specifically, there is a total lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Specifically, he fails my standards for lawyers; attorneys are supposed to do the public good. This guys is just a run of the mill activist lawyer. He's also still early in his career for a decent evaluation. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the page - Deleting is not a solution. His works have been consistently covered by leading newspapers including The Hindu , the most reliable and prestigious news agency of India. This 23 year old guy had successfully fought a legal battle against the government board wherein Rights of 5 Million examinees, who take the exams conducted by board every year, were at stake. Calling him a 'run of the mill activist lawyer' is not justified. Considering the poor state of affairs of Judiciary and executive in India things like this are almost impossible. He had also got the Right to Information Rules framed by the the mighty Chief Justice amended for the sake of people falling below poverty line. The editors should have atleast basic knowledge about things in India before terming this guy not notable. More references need to be added by editing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul Kumar Si (talk • contribs) 05:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertised campaigning. SwisterTwister talk 03:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 24 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, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The arguments for keeping are arguments for advocacy. But WP does not do that. There's no other reason to keep. The lawsuit is ONEEVENT, and he is not otherwise notable DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 5 February 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. clear consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Value 360 Communications[edit]

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

Was declined several times at AfC, article's creator simply moved it to mainspace. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to write about this one! Light2021 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The best of the sources is probably the April 2015 "Silicon India" piece, as the remainder are routine announcements standard for a firm going about its business in the PR field. Overall I agree with the March-April 2016 AfC reviewers' assessments and do not consider this to establish WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 28 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. I have no problem with restoring if Czar wants this in his draft space but I agree it's WP:TOOSOON to even start drafting so I have closed as delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Eternal[edit]

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

No independent references. Said to be "upcoming", so there aren't likely to be any. Maproom (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NVG; no reliable sources available. Υπογράφω (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate in draftspace. Relevant sources exist in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, but are not fleshed out in the article. It should go through AfC when the sources are added. czar 10:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 10:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP: TOOSOON. No real objection to the suggestion to move to draft space, but I don't see any particular use in doing so. The article content is just one paragraph.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:33, 30 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 to Dangal (film). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanya Malhotra[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E: The subject fails to establish independent notability and it's WP:TOOSOON for stand-alone article. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect WP:TOOSOON redirect to Dangal (film). FITINDIA (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dangal (film). Previous examples Zaira Wasim Suhani Bhatnagar. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:15, 4 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanka Dineth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No significant improvement since previously AfD. Dan arndt (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aro Korol[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:ARTIST. Author of 1-2 documentaries that didn't get any awards or other recognition so far. Except mentions in passing he got only minor, one-eventish coverage due to alleged death treat/stalking from [38]. I cannot find any reliable Polish media discussing him (all I get is at blog level). At best, WP:TOOSOON. No article on more inclusive pl wiki is also a red flag (not a reason to delete, just an indication he is too small to even merit an article on local Polish Wikiepdia). PS. Created by WP:SPA, so fits in the likely WP:COI/vanity/spam pattern. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 28 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BONUSBaby[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. As yet only a hastly twinkle in some marketing pinhead's eye. Check those refs. TheLongTone (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:43, 28 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Mae Young[edit]

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

Article previously WP:PRODed in June 2014 (note that the PROD was endorsed by a second editor, before being WP:DEPRODed later). Not notable former child actress: fails WP:NACTOR (if we're generous Step by Step and Undercover Angel gets her to "two notable roles", but not "multiple notable roles"). Also, clear WP:GNG fail: only single barest possible passing mentions in Variety, LA Times and EW, so no "significant" coverage of her. Bottom line: doesn't meet the notability threshold for a stand-alone bio article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She was also noted as the spokeskid for Welch's Grape Juice [39][40][41], and I think she may barely pass WP:NACTOR. But I agree that substantive online content about her is scarce to the point of non-existence. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I agree that the bigger issue here is actually WP:GNG rather than WP:NACTOR. Bottom line: I'd like more eyes on this than during the 2014 PROD, to determine if this one should stay or go... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think she's more well known as the spokeskid for Welch's Grape Juice than for Step by Step. Though I was kind of shocked to find several trolling comments on video sharing sites, and even IMDb, suggesting that Emily Mae should have been given to a child molester. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I think this is why some editors are uncomfortable with the project having articles about child actors unless they are particularly notable. FWIW... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree. I'm very uncomfortable with having articles on child actors that decided to have normal, anonymous, lives as adults. Like Emily Mae... Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing with no genuine claims of substance and significance. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 1 February 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 to Mindless Self Indulgence. per rationale at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lindsey_Way ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Montano[edit]

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

Per WP:NMUSIC, and specifically the part where it says that "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." This person is not independently notable and the page should be replaced with a redirect to Mindless Self Indulgence. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsey Way. Should have been batched.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 28 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. apparently there are enough sources available DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Wai[edit]

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

Appears to have been abandoned by creator. No substantial information. No citations. Appears related to Battle of Pratapgarh, in fact, looks like it's another name for the same. RoCo^(talk) 18:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of WP:GNG Spiderone 19:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Battle was in 1687, and is not the same as Pratapgarh. A short discussion is in: Kincaid, C. A. (1922). A history of the Maratha people (Vol. 2). H. Milford, Oxford university press. p 48. Another option is to merge into Mughal–Maratha Wars. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage seems universally very short. I think the main primary source is the "Maratha Chronicles", which I don't know anything about, but is referenced in the discussions I see about Hambirrao and his death. However, the battle is described as bloody and being a part of a large invasion and the leaders (Hambirrao for the Maratha's and Sarja Khan for the Mughal's) were major military leaders, so the battle was almost certainly a large affair involving thousands of fighters. While the case for GNG is not very strong, the case for an event with a significant lasting effect is, given the role Hambirrao's death played in the future of Sambhaji's rule. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The battle isn't notable. The History of Maratha Peoples talks for less than a page about it and doesn't define it as a single battle. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, AFD isn't the place to request an article clean-up. The battle is notable, had strategic implications at the time and article is referenced. The battle appears in multiple contemporary book sources (check google books). See for example "The 1687 Battle of Wai saw the Maratha forces badly weakened by the Mughals. The key Maratha commander Hambirao Mohite was killed, and troops began to desert the Maratha armies." (https://books.google.com/books?id=r5NRDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA291), "Sambhaji's senapati, Hambir Rao Mobile, died fighting against the Mughals in a bloody battle in the vicinity of Wai towards the fall of 1687. It weakened Sambhaji's military position beyond redemption, and he was deserted by the bulk" (https://books.google.com/books?id=d1wUgKKzawoC&pg=PA49), "father of Tarabai, Hambirrao Mohite, lost his life in December, 1687, while fighting successfully a fierce battle against the Mughal troops ... Mughal service) near Wai." (https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=Eh1BAAAAMAAJ), https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=pOu1AAAAIAAJ, "In 1687 Hambirrao was fatally wounded in the battle of Wai against the Mughals" (https://books.google.com/books?id=iF8MAAAAIAAJ), "The Maratha kingdom suffered a heavy blow at the death of Hambirrao Mohite in 1687. He was successful in preventing the Mughal advance at Kalyan, Bhivandi, Raigad and Panhala. Sarjakhan who was despatched by Aurangzeb, after the fall of Vijapur, advanced upto Wai where Hambirrao was camping." (https://books.google.com/books?id=43gBAAAAMAAJ), "He died in a battle with Aurangzib's Bijapuri General, Rustam Khan, near Wai in October, 1687" (https://books.google.com/books?id=SETRAAAAMAAJ). --Soman (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman: The first book you link to looks self-published. Other than that, those sources seem to indicate Hambir Rao is notable, not this battle. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Soman: I do know that AfD isn't the place to request a clean-up, and I wasn't doing so. The initial creator created the article with little context. I was unsure if the battle was even real. If it wasn't, a clean-up would serve no purpose, therefore the nomination. Also, the lack of content wasn't the primary reason for the nomination. The discussion can be closed as keep if you're confident the article can be improved and/or is properly referenced now. RoCo^(talk) 23:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollingcontributor: Just to be clear, you can no longer withdraw your nomination. You made the nom and you can change your mind about it if you like but this discussion will have to be closed as all AfDs are. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: Yeah, it would short circuit the discussion. It was just a suggestion, and did not mean I would (or could) withdraw the AfD. Thanks! RoCo^(talk) 01:53, 4 February 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 to Casey Mecija. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic Materials (2016)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Fails WP:NALBUM. Article contains no citations. Google and NYT searches provides nothing other than trivial mentions and Youtube videos. CBS527^Talk 20:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC) CBS527^Talk 20:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move and then redirect: no need for disambiguation, so this should just be at Psychic Materials, but that should then be converted into a redirect to the artist. PamD 22:55, 31 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 to Triangulaire. Content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 21:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1947 Triangulaire[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Fails WP:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Adding the follwing for the same reasons:[reply]

Merge - since result tables are so small, they can be easily merged into the main article. Renata (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article. Perfectly reasonable to keep this level of detail on the main topic. SFB 00:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - individual season articles for this level of football are not notable. Giant Snowman 12:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - With a non-FIFA member taking part, I am doubtful any of these matches count as official tier 1 games and with no sourced prose to back up the results, this seems like a clear violation of WP:NOTSTATS for a very minor regional competition. Fenix down (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - from the evidence available, this seems to be a minor competition Spiderone 11:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, seeing as the results and winners already exist in the Triangulaire article, no merging necessary. Laurdecl ^talk 08:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge on second thought. While the Triangulaire article has the winners, it does not have an individual goal tally, which could easily be added. It would be a shame for this information to be deleted when it could so easily be in the main article. Laurdecl ^talk 08:37, 3 February 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. The 2 keeps are obviously irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Farooqui[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--This article has been well referenced, notable citations and meets the requirements of Wikipedia. The entry is of a prominent internet entrepreneur and IMHO, I feel when so many entrepreneurs are listed on Wikipedia, we need more from India too.--

Besides the debate of non-notable person is irrelevant as celebrities are now not just abt Sports and Entertainment but in all spheres of life.

I would like to close this debate. it's been well settled in the past. Akumar124 (talk)

- I disagree with what Sportsfan 1234 has said. Though Faisal Farooqui is a notable person, this article is not well referenced, and has been written in a very partisan manner. Some citations are dead links and MouthShut.com links cannot be counted as verifiable sources.

- And Its not about India vs the World, the articles should be of encyclopedic quality, this article fails the test for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumar124 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Where do I start with this mess? It claims to be a WP:BLP, but without an age or year of birth. The only decent source is the Times of India, but it only mentions him briefly in the context of lawsuits. There is literally no significant coverage of him at all. Nothing against SUNY - I went there my self - but it's huge and is not highly selective. A quick search of their web page, by the way, shows he graduated in 1999. The article is mostly a wall of words. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as deletion request for this page is concerned; it doesn't hold any substance. Faisal Farooqui is one of the pioneers of the startup culture in India. There have been many entrepreneurs who have been inspired by him. With India witnessing the growth of the digital age people like Faisal hold importance.

All the points are well referenced.

I think the deletion request for this page should be removed. divineturtle (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divineturtle (talk • contribs) 13:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : The subject is well known personality. Let me improve the article. -- Tinu Cherian - 17:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : The subject has presented and spoken at many seminars where I have moderated. Subject has done seminal work in the field of Internet entrepreneurship in India. If this subject can't be listed on wikipedia then many others don't deserve the same. However, I suggest strong keep. -- Rairan [[User talk:Agraable1| —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete A promotional article that is attempting to masquerade as a biography, this article really should be deleted. The sources provided are very unreliable and my own search has found nothing better. I'd suggest that someone starts this article from scratch, using the Article Creation wizard, and then submits it for a review. Also, what's with the crazy sockpuppet action in this AfD? Exemplo347 (talk) 14:21, 1 February 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. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Porter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Semi-promotional article on non-notable person. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sammy Porter--the version that was deleted was infinitely superior to this version in tone, content, and references. This is a different version and thus does not qualify for WP:G4, nor is it promotional enough for WP:G11 (if you disagree, go for it, with my blessing), and since it makes some sort of valid claim of importance I don't think WP:A7 applies. So here we are--delete for lack of notability per GNG and et cetera. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why is my article nominated for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogoshzara (talk • contribs) 07:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I generally try and save musician articles. There's not much i can do here unfortunately. Non notable musician. Lourdes 18:22, 4 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Schmid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and is possibly WP:TOOSOON. Minor actor at the moment, but early days. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fixed the formatting of this nomination, which had been attached to the first nomination by mistake, but I have no opinion about whether the page should be deleted or not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete and Salt~~. This should have been deleted the first time around. All the coverage did was noted how minor an actor he is really is. He didn't even appear in the IMDB listing on the first ref until somebody added in him later, and is not in the first grouping on IMDB. Exceedingly. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR, and subsequently WP:BIO and possibly WP:TOOSOON possibly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 01:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete BLP with no sources and appears not to not notable. KylieTastic (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the unsigned "delete" vote was posted by the nominator. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seemed to have voted in own WP:AFD. Please ignore "Strong Delete and Salt". scope_creep (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 4 February 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neelam Kinarey[edit]

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

Article consists entirely of one infobox, one reference, and an eight-word lead. Not notable at all. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is challenging to find English-language refs for this show, but with a few minutes of WP:BEFORE, I have found ~~four~~ three not very good sources and one pretty good one. The show's Facebook page has 4,525 followers, for what it's worth. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then if there's no references, then perhaps the article shouldn't be created. It's not necessary to create an article for every topic. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your logic. There are references. Since there are English-language references, it seems likely that there are Urdu-language references that I am unable to find. I would rather give this article some time to develop with the help of any Pakistani Urdu-speaking editors we have here on en.WP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then if we should give time for the article to develop, it should be in the draft space, not the main space. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 11:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live Bihar News[edit]

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

Non-notable news portal. No evidence that this website has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Υπογράφω (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any coverage about the portal and no indication it is different from any other portals out there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:29, 4 February 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanak Sarwar[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability guideline for biographies. Kayser Ahmad (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:CREATIVE. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 09:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 28 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.