< 29 January	31 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 redirect to New Jersey Rockin' Rollers. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York/New Jersey Rockers[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogout&returnto=Wikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2FNew+York%2FNew+Jersey+Rockers&returntoquery=action%3Dedit

(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. A search of google turned up nothing but other wikis and a few mentions that such a league existed on websites that help people locate local sport teams to join. No coverage in secondary sources that establish notability and no coverage in news that I could find. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This guy again? You're being completely disruptive with these repeated nominations of everything roller hockey. You need to knock it off and stop disrupting Wikipedia with your editing. Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - This current article barely even qualifies as a stub, and contains no sources to establish notability. I spent a while searching for some, both as the "New York Rockers" and the "New Jersey Rockers", and aside from a very brief mention on the official league website, there was virtually nothing on the team, going by either name. Pretty much the only thing that is out there are mirrors of this article, and a listing on a roller hockey fan wiki. None of these are reliable sources, so unless someone can find some substantial, secondary sources that I missed, I don't see this coming close to meeting the GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Redirect to New Jersey Rockin' Rollers, per the argument by GauchoDude below. The team, under this name, still doesn't come close to meeting the GNG, especially considering they folded within a year of changing their name to the "New York/New Jersey Rockers", but a redirect to the better-sourced article on their original incarnation seems like an appropriate enough action. There's not really much to merge, though, seeing how little information is here. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as Smartyllama said, knock it off. This crusade is disruptive. Lepricavark (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lepricavark: you are attacking me and not judging the page on its merits... There is not a single source to indicate the subject is notable. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not attacking you. Discussion of your conduct is not the same thing as discussion about you personally. If you think I am attacking you, take me to ANI. But if you do, I will point out that you recently speedy'd an article right after it was kept at AfD, which most people will probably agree is evidence of disruption. And I don't accept your claim that there are no sources. Lepricavark (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I am unaware of the nominator's history, so I have no idea whether or not he's on a "crusade" or what, but just looking at this particular AFD, the rationale for deletion seems perfectly valid. The team is, as far I can tell, not notable. You say you don't accept the claims of there being no sources, but if you're going to argue that, you are really going to need to actually provide some, because, like I said above, I spent some time searching for some and I found not a single reliable source that talked about the team, under either name, in any sort of depth whatsoever. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The nominator's history can be easily ascertained via his recent contribs. For example, he tagged an article for speedy deletion less than ten hours after it was kept at an AfD. That shows a galling lack of respect for consensus and a determination to push forward in getting content deleted no matter what. The editor also has nominated ~20 articles similar to this one that were kept at AfD very recently. One would think those outcomes would give the nom pause to reconsider his actions, but nope... he's still pushing forward. As a result, my default setting is to !vote keep on any roller hockey AfD initiated by this editor unless I am 100% convinced that the subject is not notable. That hasn't happened here just yet. Lepricavark (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Lepricavark: you just flat out said that you are voting to keep the article simply because I was the one who nominated it. You aren't even looking at the article, just assuming that since I nominated it, it clearly should be kept. Also the ONE page I nominated for CSD despite being kept at AFD was an 82.7% copyright violation (see here). It was kept because people like yourself didn't even bother to look at the page but just assumed that I am editing in bad faith and nominating pages to be disruptive. If you actually did look at my editing history, I have over 60,000+ constructive edits. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Lepricavark: and if you don't accept my claim, or that of 64.183.45.226, then please, I implore you, prove us wrong. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Your CSD move was a bad call, period. I don't think you should be making claims about other people not looking at pages. You made no effort to see if these articles were salvageable before bringing them to AfD. I'm disheartened by your enthusiasm for deleting the hard work of other Wikipedians, especially as demonstrated by your continual pushing forward even after numerous editors have suggested that you stop. You've essentially made deleting roller hockey articles your personal crusade. I've made my feelings on the matter perfectly clear and no amount of badgering is going to change my stance. Lepricavark (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Lepricavark: I find it interesting that a user with less than 12,000 edits and not even a year of experience is lecturing me about "personal crusades". I've been editing for over 5 years and this is but one of the MANY things I'm working on. Not trying to change your stance, just trying to point out how ridiculous it is. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        There's nothing ridiculous here. Zackmann08, while you have a claim here, I'm going to have to agree with Lepricavark regarding your horrific track record in the recent past, in which you've attempted to delete dozens of articles covering an entire professional league. All without any apparent effort to comply with WP:BEFORE, Wikipedia policy that obligates to look for sources, in a rapid fire effort to destroy content. You have never withdrawn an AfD in the past few weeks where sources were added, nor did you respond to discussion at AfD or on your talk page. For all your crocodile tears about copyright issues and "constructive edits", I can point to this edit of yours, where you tag bombed an article in an apparent fit of pique that another editor had the nerve to stand in your path of deletion. Given your past track record and your refusal to make any sort of good faith efforts to improve articles before nominating them for deletion, I think Lepricavark was rather well-justified in taking you to task. Alansohn (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Alansohn: I have no problem with "being taken to task" or receiving a WP:TROUT. I'm not perfect. I mess up just like anyone else. What I have a problem with is the continued failure to actually judge the article by its merits. These pages are not encyclopedic. Your only objection to 99% of the pages is that I have nominated so many of them. Yes there were some that shouldn't have been nominated. I accept that. But actually defend the article on its merits, not just because I nominated it. Anyway, I'm over this. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The rest of us are fed up with your failure to judge each article by its merits before bringing it to AfD. Someone with 60,000+ edits and 5 years of experience really should know better. Lepricavark (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The kicker: It's a decade old stub. Normally I'm for keeping these things around in the hopes they'll be expanded, but a whole decade has gone by. Doesn't mean it has to be deleted, though. If somesouls think another soul is launching a Dletionist crusade, Admins should be brought in. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect - Article doesn't seem to establish notability. Article lacks independent reliable sources. An exhaustive search of all Google engines provided nothing to establish notability. Even The New York Times has nothing. If someone can come up with some acceptable sources I'll reconsider but as it is the subject fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 02:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Merge: Without preaching or standing on a soapbox, we'd be doing the process a disservice by not reviewing each instance. I'm unconvinced that all votes here have directly addressed this nomination at hand. That said, it appears that the club may be an iteration of the New Jersey Rockin' Rollers. Per sourcing there, the franchise attempted to play in multiple locations and changed their name to "New York/New Jersey Rockin' Rollers", which is very similar to this article. GauchoDude (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, GauchoDude! According to the New Jersey Rockin' Rollers article the team never played a game as the New York/New Jersey Rockin' Rollers. That explains the apparent lack of reliable sources. I have no problem with a redirect. CBS527^Talk 04:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GauchoDude I'm unconvinced that all votes here have directly addressed this nomination at hand. What does that mean? I don't understand it fully, though I have a ABF idea…L3X1 My Complaint Desk 03:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: Simply put, In my opinion not all votes within this conversation have addressed either the pros and/or cons of the merits as to why this article should or shouldn't exist. Bad faith aside, the votes of these do not help resolve the main issue at hand to get us closer towards a conclusion. It seems like there must be some history or bad blood that I don't know about, but any vote which can't objectively point to a policy/consensus based decision shouldn't be counted, again in my opinion, regardless of what the nom has or hasn't already brought to AfD discussion. GauchoDude (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. These kind of articles have no place on wikipedia. Speedy delete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per GauchoDude. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge / Redirect, as suggested. Alansohn (talk) 17:09, 7 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. joe decker ^talk 05:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Zeedan[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. Very low citations according to GScholar, and still a postdoc so the rest of the PROF criteria seem unlikely. Google and GNews searches similarly turn up nothing of substance. None of the sources cited in the article are independent of the subject. – Joe (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 3 cites in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as unconvincing, only things close to significance are mere fellowships. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. Autobiographical article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very far from WP:PROF#C1 and no other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I disagree with the nom on the post-doc thing (post-doc's can very well be professors), but the overall argument is spot on. The subject does not meet PROF. Lourdes 10:45, 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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christophoros (Rakintzakis)[edit]

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

Article subject does not appear to be notable for any reason other than being a bishop. Bishops aren't generally notable per WP:BISHOPS Amortias (T)(C) 23:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there are dozens and dozens of similar biographical articles on other bishops that could be tagged this way as well; unless those are also removed, arbitrarily picking this one makes no sense. To the point of notability, there is in fact historical notability here, as Bp. Christopher was the first Dean of the Toronto Orthodox Theological Academy for nine years, as well as representing the Ecumenical Patriarchate at two Episcopal assembles. Furthermore he is a popular bishop of interest to Orthodox Christians. Vote to KEEP. ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:CLERGY says, "The bishops of major denominations are notable by virtue of their status" and specifically includes Eastern Orthodox denominations in this category. Not sure the article as written sets forth the case for his notability in the clearest possible terms, however. Would like to hear more input from editors who are more familiar with Orthodox hierarchy, in Canada or elsewhere. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. Orthodox bishops are certainly presumed to be notable per long-standing practice. St Anselm (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's unclear if he's a diocesan bishop or not. The article says he's a titular bishop and auxiliary bishop. Generally only diocesan bishops are considered inherently notable at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is the Vicar-Bishop of the "Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto Canada" (1999-present). ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, auxillary bishops are also considered notable - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felipe de Jesús Estévez. St Anselm (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I don't see any reason why his activities within the Greek Orthodox church brought up by ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 as well as his position as titular bishop and auxiliary bishop are not sufficient evidence for notability. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We generally regard bishops as notable. This seems to be a case of fulfilling an episcopal role without a local episcopal title, because none has been created. I expect that his is only a modest denomination in Canada, but its leaders should be accorded an appropriate status. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 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. The arguments that this is essentially a how-to guide are compelling in light of our policy (WP:NOTGUIDE) The article still reads like a guide, opinions to the contrary in this discussion notwithstanding. Sandstein 14:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting illegal aliens in the United States[edit]

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

Fails not WP:NOTGUIDE JMHamo (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi all, the author of the page is someone I know in real life, and he's working on his first article. He's going to go ahead and change the page so that it mentions news sites that have discussed the phenomenon, how much this is being done, etc., rather than just the guide it currently is. He's going to do this today, and once he does that, the article should be kept. -Ethanbas (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've added more content to the article other than just how to report aliens, and removed some info on reporting aliens. Hopefully this makes this less of a guide. Please let me know if there are any other problems with this article. Jmpetroske (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page no longer reads like a guide. Riceissa (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Deportation and removal from the United States per WP:PAGEDECIDE. This information needs to be presented within the context of the broader legal framework for immigration, deportation, and removal in the United States. At the moment, there is not much information at the Deportation and removal from the United States article, so I recommend that Jmpetroske devotes their efforts to presenting this information within that article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow up comment: I would like to take a moment to expand upon my previous comment and to explain, in greater detail, why this article is not appropriate as a standalone page. The topic presented in this article relies upon the premise that the act of "reporting" unauthorized immigrants consists of tips (anonymous or otherwise) provided to law enforcement. The article also suggests (implicitly) that this form of reporting is a widespread phenomenon. This is a drastic oversimplification of the existing regulatory framework for immigration and naturalization in the United States. It does not accurately describe the existing system of information disclosure (or nondisclosure) between the federal government, states, local governments, foreign governments, and the private sector. For example, in a practical sense, "reporting" could also encompass the obligation of employers to verify the immigration status of employees (see I-9 (form)) and the "non-reporting" that occurs in sanctuary cities. In its current form, the article provides readers an incomplete and misleading description of the role of the private sector in enforcing immigration laws/regulations. If Jmpetroske wants to add information in this encyclopedia about the role of the private sector in enforcing immigration/nationality laws, it needs to be included in an article that provides readers sufficient background information about the existing regulatory framework. I think the best place to do so is either at Deportation and removal from the United States (though that article is woefully incomplete and requires significant expansion) or at the Illegal immigration to the United States article (which is much expansive). It is also essential (per WP:WEIGHT) to include a full range of viewpoints about the benefits/harms that result from private sector involvement in enforcing immigration laws. It is also very important to address the normative questions about delegating "reporting" rights/responsibilities to the private sector. There is substantial legal scholarship on these issues, so it should not be difficult to include a range of viewpoints. See, for example:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]. My recommendation is to begin updating the Illegal immigration to the United States article or Deportation and removal from the United States article with a more thorough description of the existing legal framework and then, after you have done that, you can discuss the ways in which state governments, local governments, foreign governments, and private actors participate in this system. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Adam B. Cox & Eric A. Posner, Delegation in Immigration Law, 79 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1285 (2012).
^ Hiroshi Motomura, Who Belongs?: Immigration Outside the Law and the Idea of Americans in Waiting, 2 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 359 (2012).
^ Policing Immigrant Communities, 128 Harv. L. Rev. 1771 (2015).
^ Eric A. Posner, The Institutional Structure of Immigration Law, 80 U. Chi. L. Rev. 289 (2013).
^ Christine N. Cimini, Hands Off Our Fingerprints: State, Local, and Individual Defiance of Federal Immigration Enforcement, 47 U. Conn. L. Rev. 101 (2014).

- Yeah I think you're right. If an admin wants to delete this page go ahead. Jmpetroske (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is transparently an article that was written first as a xenophobic "how to guide", by a new single-purpose account, packed into a soapbox, and hung on a coat rack. No clean up will fix the basic idea, nor will good-faith efforts clean up the taint. We, the Wikipedians, are incorporated as a charity - not a way to spread dangerous ideas. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins. Shameful. It needs to be salted. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You sling a lot of mud, but you have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims. I held a very informal Wikipedia edit-a-thon a few days ago at the University of Washington, and this is the topic Jmpetroske chose to write on. I can assure you that he has no ill intentions when editing Wikipedia. --Ethanbas (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that it might have come off that way. However, just because you disagree with the something, doesn't mean its bad to do research or educate people about it. I am confused how you ended up on Wikipedia if you are scared of valid information. I'm very sure there are better sites for spreading hateful messages than Wikipedia. So I think I will ignore what you say and continue to spread my "xenophobia" on Wikipedia. Jmpetroske (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Illegal immigration to the United States#Deportation or delete. We already have an article about the topic of deportation in the US. The only reason I can see to keep this is to give people advice on how to do it, and we're not a how-to guide. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Deportation and removal from the United States. Delete, upon considering the implications of a merge and delete, as pointed out by NinjaRobotPirate Reporting illegal aliens in the United States is a duplication of an existing topic. It would be inappropriate to merge it to Illegal immigration to the United States#Deportation because the scope of the article is aliens, not just immigrants (a subset). Oppose a redirect, because the title should not exist at all, as it still implies a how-to-guide. Mduvekot (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mduvekot: Merging it will leave a redirect. Because of attribution requirements, we can't really merge and then delete. If you don't want a redirect left behind, vote to delete. As far as the target goes, I personally don't care that much where it's redirected or merged to. Anywhere is fine with me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:59, 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. joe decker ^talk 05:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Falen Bonsett[edit]

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

Non-notable radio personality, all news refs are either PR or merely passing. Though not a reason for deletion, per se, article has been a drama magnet as well. Wood not bang. TransporterMan (TALK) 23:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article's subject lacks the notability necessary for a Wikipedia article, therefore failing WP:NOTABILITY/WP:PERSON. Blurp92 (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single-market radio personalities do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist; they get articles only if and when they can be sourced over WP:GNG for something of more than purely local significance. But of the four sources here, two are her own self-published social networking profiles, one is a deadlink of an article about her being named one of the "hottest" women in radio — as if physical appearance had anything to do with success in an audio-only medium! — in a non-notable other radio host's self-created and unscientific poll, and the last is a non-substantive blurb about her getting married. A person does not get an article the moment one or two reliable sources nominally verify that she exists; she gets an article when reliable sources are substantively covering her in a context that constitutes a notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 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 speedy delete. Was speedy deleted (CSD 12, copyvio) by Premeditated Chaos joe decker ^talk 06:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E. Lamont Johnson[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NACTOR. This unsourced article is about an actor who appears to have played several minor roles in small films in the late 1970s and early 1980s [1]. DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't seem notable, but was clearly created by a user with no concern for guidelines since he/she removed the Prod with a disingenuous edit summary, so I'm willing to bet he/she doesn't really have anything to add to prove it's notability.★Trekker (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may just be a well-meaning, new editor not intimately familiar with the ins and outs of WP policy. (Kind of like me!) DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, maybe I was a little harsh, but I wish that they would be clearer in their edit summary and actually add some valuable sources now if they would find any.★Trekker (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G12, copyvio of [2]. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:04, 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. joe decker ^talk 06:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nius X[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Very minor band. All the established sources, Soundcloud, Napster, Spotify, Discogs show them as barely there. Some minor notability, but no pass for WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sources are only announcements and mentions with the information only being basic sentences. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources to reference, and those three from Helsingborgs Dagblad are not enough for a GNG-pass. Delete per WP:DEL8. — Sam Sailor 10:41, 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. joe decker ^talk 06:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FitLifeDXB[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. What is the point about having an article about gym unless for WP:PROMO only. scope_creep (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails CORP, WP:GNG and WP:NOT applies. Promotional piece -reads like a company press release not an encyclopedia article. Article created by WP:SPA whose only edits involve this article. An organization is not notable merely because a notable an event was associated with it. Sources in article do nothing to establish notability and Google and NYT searches provides nothing as well. CBS527^Talk 02:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as clear advertising with only mirrored PR offered as sources, which is never convincing, regardless of number, to our policies. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a recent new company, indicating nothing more than a run-of-the-mill firm going about its business and hoping to expand. I see nothing in the article to indicate encyclopaedic notability and my searches are finding nothing better. AllyD (talk) 21:58, 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NoStringsNG.com[edit]

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

Dead site and possibly project. No point in article. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete Need not exist in the first place and bad link.ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:29, 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 Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1. (non-admin closure) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 01:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted assassination of Donald Trump[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK of recently deleted article Assassination threats against Donald Trump. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those involved in prior discussion: Ethanbas, Primefac, Rhododendrites, SalemXIII, Montanabw, AusLondonder, Cwmhiraeth, Bondegezou, NinjaRobotPirate, Ɱ, BU_Rob13, Twitbookspacetube, DarjeelingTea, TonyBallioni, JFG, The Quixotic Potato, (Sandstein as closer) Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is not about a threat, it's about an assassination attempt for which a conviction was made. The subject matter has been the subject of a BBC documentary. How can an attempt to assassinate a presidential candidate not be significant enough to warrant an article? McPhail (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is considerable debate whether this is at all an attempt on his life — something that the court decision denied it was. This is not included in the article and the article fails both WP:NOTABILITY & especially WP:NOTNEWS (this garnered very little media attention apart from up to 48 hours after the event). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. Sandford himself has repeatedly admitted that his intent was to kill Trump. The attempt has received continual media coverage throughout, particularly in the UK press. The attempt was also the subject of a documentary that aired on BBC One, the UK's most watched channel. The sources provided in the article demonstrate the media coverage. McPhail (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Throroughly sourced article about a notable topic. Alansohn (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the article, except to note this is not a WP:G4-worthy recreation of Assassination threats against Donald Trump. That was about the (not actually existing, apparently) threats against Trump; this here is about a specific attempt rather than a threat. Sandstein 22:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, let's run it through the entire deletion review then. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Oppose - (note - pinged here by nom) I voted to Support Deletion at the "assassination threats" article (recently deleted), however, in this substantially revised version I oppose deletion. The incident received substantial coverage in RS and articles of this type have acceptable precedence as in attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, Attempted assassination of Harry S. Truman, Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento, Baltimore Plot, etc. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced and notable. However, we need to wait for multiple attempts before we can have the assasinations article. And it will happen sooner or later, the guy hit negative popularity in record time. Doubtless some plots are being cooked up as we speak! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of WP:CRYSTAL? Write about it when it happens. — JFG ^talk 10:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This was an admitted attempt on Trump's life by the perpetrator, whereas the previous article was a catch-all for various threats with little substance. This new article is detailed and well-sourced. — JFG ^talk 10:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article seems to have significance for a larger audience, is referenced properly, writing style seems ok. Zombalu (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite clearly not a POVFORK. The article is well-sourced and notable. It garnered considerably more coverage in the UK than the US because the perpetrator was a UK citizen so it's not true to say there was little media attention.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Properly sourced, notable event. -- Kndimov (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has received consistent coverage since it happened, enough so that the BBC aired a documentary on it six months later.LM2000 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources are good. notable event. plenty of coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 23:10, 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 Victorious 3.0: Even More Music from the Hit TV Show. joe decker ^talk 06:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You Don't Know Me (Elizabeth Gillies song)[edit]

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

Song without any claims of notability and no significant coverage in reliable sources could be found. While a redirect should suffice, it simply doesn't pass notability requirements. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victorious 3.0: Even More Music from the Hit TV Show where it's already mentioned. The press release from Columbia Records is not helpful to notability. Searches found nothing helpful. Doesn't meet elements of WP:NSONG or WP:NALBUM. Gab4gab (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. It can easily redirect to the above soundtrack. Carbrera (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Victorious 3.0: Even More Music from the Hit TV Show. The song as a standalone subject fails WP:NSONG as it has not been ranked on any national/significant music or sales charts, has not won one or more awards or honors (such as a Grammy etc.), and has not been released as a recording by multiple notable artists or bands. Shearonink (talk) 23:20, 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 merge to Wetumpka, Alabama. Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas on the Coosa[edit]

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

Local routine event that fails WP:EVENT. Suggest that it be added to the Wetumpka, Alabama article. Rogermx (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the town's article as proposed. If the event had (or later gets) coverage beyond routine local sources, then an article might be appropriate. As it stands, I think the town's article is a good fit for this sort of event. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Wetumpka, Alabama. It sounds like a delightful event and will make a chaming addition to the town 's page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 7 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. joe decker ^talk 06:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MarketTools[edit]

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

Flash-in-the-pan tech firm that never achieved any notability. Even the article on the company that acquired this start-down was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetrixLab. The only real claims of importance are that the firm was named to a few "to watch" lists. Maybe some watched, but it went under. Toddst1 (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. The references are either PR or non-notable award nominations. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No mentions that I can find in mainstream publications, so company does not meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:28, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Incomplete Glenn Tilbrook[edit]

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

Unreferenced tracklist Rathfelder (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have plenty of RSes to satisfy [WP:NALBUM]. Jason Damas in an AllMusic review gives it four stars. There are some Billboard articles: [3] [4] [5] and brief mentions like: [6] [7] [8] [9]. Gab4gab (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gab4Gab. Tilbrook is an important figure in new wave music, and some reviews of this record are [10][11][12][13][14][15] Also this Washington Post article about the documentary of his tour for this album. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:37, 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. joe decker ^talk 06:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Ernst[edit]

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

No objective references. Rathfelder (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the new head coach of men's basketball at a college, he needs non-trivial media coverage to establish notability, and I cannot find it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete per WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 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 Speedy deleted as a hoax RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Heart[edit]

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

Hoax article about a non existent book. Speedy declined. PROD removed by obvious sock of page creator Exemplo347 (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Obvious WP:HOAX article and speedy candidate. The article was originally an A7 speedy - which is non-notable, but it should have been listed for speedy as a G3. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:51, 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 Deleted as G3 by User:Primefac on 08:32, 2 February 2017 (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PikoTarism[edit]

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

Google search didn't find any hits on PikoTarism. This may be a hoax, but in any case it isn't notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject has no coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An obvious hoax article, based on a video from a comedian. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per above. J 947 04:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not much seems to have been written about it. Wikipedia is not the first place to write about it. Zombalu (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !vote above has been struck. Lepricavark (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete, obvious hoax. 92.72.204.75 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obvious hoax and INVENTION that ~~frankly I'm surprised made it past the NPP guard dogs. Those homies are slackin' lately.~~ L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:L3X1 - This didn't make it past NPP. I tagged it for AFD from NPP. I considered it a non-obvious hoax. If someone else considers it an obvious hoax, they can tag it for G3. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for wording then, did not mean to sound mean or ungrateful. I added a G3 using Twinkle. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 13:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No problem. We shall see if it gets speedied or if the AFD continues to run. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 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 no consensus. No consensus about deletion, but consensus that if kept it should be moved to Arab rejectionism, which is what it is (now) about. Can be renominated after the move. Sandstein 14:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rejectionism[edit]

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

A dicdef / original research for an '-ism' based on occasonal usage of this noun derived from "rejection" and says nothing beyond the literal meaning of the word "reject" something. Basically a WP:SYNTH of examples of random usages of the term. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted after recent expansion of one special subject.Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative solution: Move to Arab rejectionism and turn this title into dab page. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: @Mark viking: @Resnjari: Will you agree with speedy non-admin closure and implementing the alternative solution above? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the work E.M.Gregory and you have done to improve the article per WP:HEY, I think keeping and renaming to Arab rejectionism, with Rejectionism becoming a DAB page, is a good solution and I support it. --Mark viking (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking around and there is the article International recognition of Israel. As this article is about recognition/non-recongition of Israel an at most the content here amounts to about two paragraphs. It can be transferred there with a redirect of Rejectionism for that article. That is a better solution than here. This term rejectionism is a neologism anyway mainly used by some proponents of the Israeli side of the conflict interpreting the Arab/Palestinian position. In many other conflicts around the world there are sides who "reject" certain things however the term rejectionism is not used. Having this article on its own goes more on the POV side as its infers that rejecting something is an Arab thing. Having a article called Arab rejctionism also would be problematic too and have a POV-ish slant to it. Unless the term rejectionism has wide ranging currency and use for other conflicts then i would change my stance and say to keep this article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now strongly sourced to peer-reviewed academic journalists, and to bluelinked scholars and diplomats who have written about Arab rejectionism in a serious way, defining it and discussing its political impact. While there undoubtedly are a number of articles form which this term can be usefully linked, I do not see a policy-based argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per reasons outlined by editor Staszek Lem. Resnjari (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder if it's basically WP:COATRACK to largely address Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel. It sure seems that way. I've tagged this for both the Israel and Palestine discussion pages, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename. A simple WP:BEFORE search shows that rejectionism as a political concept has existed for decades. There are books devoted to it, such as The Deadly Embrace: The Impact of Israeli and Palestinian Rejectionism on the Peace Process, 1997 and The Search for Peace: Peace Proposals and Rejectionism in the Arab-Israeli Conflict : a Handbook of Selected Documents, 1983 and articles such as Dateline Israel: A New Rejectionism, Foreign Policy, 1979. GScholar shows more than 2,100 hits, so there is more sourcing available. There are political groups such as the Palestine coalition Rejectionist Front. Hence the topic of Israeli/Palestinian rejectionism seems notable. Given a notable use of this concept, the synth stuff can be cut and the article is salvageable and should be kept. I would have no problem with renaming the article to something like Palestinian and Israeli rejectionism to reflect that this is about the more specific concept. --Mark viking (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please find sources which talk about "rejectionism as a political concept". There is Palestinian rejectionism and Israeli rejectionism, and many other kind of rejectionism. The fact there are two-word terms does not imply there is a concept for a single-word term beyond its dictionary definition. There should be two separate articles (may be more) and this one a disambig page.. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S., after reading a bit around, I see that "Palestinian rejectionsm" is is fact "Arab rejection of the Israel state", and I am pretty sure there is a good redirect target without actually writing a WP:FORK. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- P.P.S. I also looked thru philocophical books which use the term "rejectionism". In most case these are ad hoc usages. E.g. here 'r-ism' is a shorthand for "Foucault's rejection of humanism" whateber it is. and here the author gives his own definition of r-ism as "the approach that takes the ostensible results to be interpreted to be so unacceptable as to constitute a signal to reject something that led to these results." Also, Holocaust denial is also called "r-ism" by some. Etc. etc. Basically, any kind of rejection (disambiguation) of anything may be dubbed "rejectionism". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that there don't seem to be sources on the general concept of rejectionism and the article as it stands has problems with synthesis. A DAB page for a general concept seems like a reasonable solution to me, if there are good targets. In the spirit of salvaging what we can, there is a particular use of the concept associated with the Arab-Israeli conflict that seems notable and so could have an article devoted to it, or separate Palestinian and Israeli articles. The current article mentions the Palestinian-Israeli use, but doesn't have a lot on it. If there is a good redirect target, I would be happy to consider it. Rejectionist Front is not a good redirect target because it is too specific. --Mark viking (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It being described as a "political concept" is found in some sources relating to the Israeli side regarding their interpretation of the Palestinian view. More on the wp:POV and wp:fork side, with a dose of wp:OR in the way it is written here. The suggestion by editor Staszek Lem on a redirect within the article about recognition/non-recongition of Palestine is apt here. Still stand by the view this article ought to be deleted. Resnjari (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect term to Arab rejectionism, a term that has been in wide use for decades, with some minor uses of "Palestinian rejectionism" and the inevitible tit-for-tat introduction of "Israeli rejection." I have already sourced this WP:NEO, although it's not exactly NEO, even this article has been around for years and years. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN; I did a minor expand, source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really should have started the new article, Arab rejectionism, rather than expanding this one, doomed to be a disambig page. (also it oud be good to summarize it in Foreign_relations_of_Israel#No_recognition_or_diplomatic_relations. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is, in fact, quite ordinary to find a poorly-sourced article brought to AFD by an editor who found only "random usages of the term". Then to have another editor realize that there is a coherent topic, bring specific and reliable sourcing for the term, and propose a rename as the outcome. It's not only quite usual, it's pretty much win-win.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It became coherent only after I deleted various other fluff and you added more content to a single subject of many conflated here. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Family Feud (2016 Philippine game show) episodes[edit]

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

Fail to see the encyclopedic value in a list of episodes of a game show, no real content or sources Jac16888 ^Talk 18:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey says delete. Game show episodes in general lack any shred of notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the episodes are notable, so why should there be a list of them? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:08, 7 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 Premier League records and statistics. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest players to score in the Premier league[edit]

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

This article is unsourced and I have not been able to find sources that prove that the information is correct. I Prodded the article and left a message for the author asking him to supply sources which he ignored. He removed the PROD tag just before its expiry without addressing the problem. Domdeparis (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - have added a ref that sources the entire list -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS - the (current) youngest player record holder should be listed at Premier League records and statistics but no need for a separate article. Giant Snowman 20:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Premier League records and statistics. Foreseeably not notable enough to stand as an independent article all though the information it contains is useful. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - a small table, can easily be added to the main records page. No need for this fork. Fenix down (talk) 10:28, 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 keep. Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the presidency of George W. Bush[edit]

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

We already have three articles thoroughly documenting the presidency of George W. Bush:

This article is practically a WP:CFORK, and mostly unnecessary considering how detailed the latter two articles are. --Nevé –selbert 17:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama Making a timeline for a president is completely valid on Wikipedia, and has widespread support. Ethanbas^talk 17:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Nevé –selbert 17:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how much content should this timeline have for you to support keeping it? Ethanbas (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of multiple little to no content articles from this editor that're generally just re-statements of or copies from existing articles with no relevant expansion. JamesG5 (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, these stubs are almost always notable, and I create them because either I plan to improve them in the future, or as a notice for Wikipedia editors that an article should be created. Jim O'Neill (investor) is one recent example where I created a short stub, and now it was nominated for good article status. I think this timeline we're discussion definitely falls into that category of articles! -Ethanbas (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Because I couldn't put down eight years of information in a day we have to get rid of the article? I don't understand why Obama can have one but Bush can't. Those two articles cited are not timelines so I don't see how they are relevant other than being related to Bush which still doesn't make them substitutes by default. Give me the time to get to every year. It won't be done in a day or a week but it'll get there. Informant16 30 January 2017
- Informant16, you make a very good argument for the creation of Draft:Timeline of the presidency of George W. Bush. Why not prepare such a draft and publish it when complete? That would be the very best option, given your steady determination to contribute to the article.--Nevé –selbert 16:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article that fits firmly in the structure of Category:United States presidential administration timelines. The article is new and being expanded with reliable and verifiable sources; there's no doubt that the notability standard is met here. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So would Timeline of the presidency of George Washington and Timeline of the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, but those articles aren't being arbitrarily created just for the sake of stuffing a category. This article is presently of an extremely poor quality and should at the very least be relegated to WP:DRAFT status, rather than being retained as a stub article.--Nevé –selbert 16:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you deletionists like invoking Wikipedia policies and guidelines so much, please take a look at WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN -Ethanbas (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The policies you are invoking could refer to anything considered notable on a whim. How about a Timeline of the lifetime of Jesus Christ article? If I created a stub and only documented his life say the year before he was crucified, would you honestly think that article would be worth keeping? I mean after all, notability wouldn't be at all an issue, given the fact that he is arguably the most famous person in human history.--Nevé –selbert 21:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could try creating that article, and see what Wikipedians say about it! But, for this timeline, there is a strong, well accepted precedent with the (8) Obama and Trump timelines. -Ethanbas (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relevant, definitely notable, and could be very useful to readers looking for a thumbnail sketch of events in GWB's presidency. Granted, this very much a work-in-progress, but deleting it, or even relegating it to draft status, is a bit much. This stub of a TL should be retained, especially given its creator's stated commitment to growing the article and refining its content. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why wouldn't an external link to this webpage at Presidency of George W. Bush#External links suffice? Note that it was Informant16 who stated such commitment to growing said article, not the creator. This is what the page looked like the last time he properly edited it.--Nevé–selbert 21:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added events to each year of the timeline. Maybe Nevé–selbert can now agree that there *is* content on the timeline, and that people (me included) will work on the timeline! --Ethanbas (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Find sources, then add.--Nevé –selbert 23:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's all wikilinked. Well known events don't require sources if they are wikilinked. I posted a warning on your talk page. Ethanbas (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - And... that thickheaded warning has been duly reverted as vandalism. Well known events don't require sources if they are wikilinked. Per WP:VERIFY: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources.--Nevé –selbert 12:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Like I said, what I added are well known events. I don't believe that for an entry such as "January 20 - first inauguration of George W. Bush", I need a source. The verifiability of what I added isn't likely to be challenged me thinks. OTOH, if you look at what Informant16 added for year 2002 of the timeline, that's the type of timeline material that requires sourcing. --Ethanbas (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Neve-selbert: is Timeline of the presidency of Bill Clinton included in this nomination? It seems to have been created with a tag leading to this AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominated for speedy deletion. What is it with creating practically blank timelines of American presidencies? This is borderline vandalism.--Nevé –selbert 12:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per the other nine keeps. J 947 04:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Per what exactly? Keeping a practically empty and a potentially WP:CONTENTFORK copyright violation just for the sake of doing so?--Nevé –selbert 12:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Timelines are generally acceptable and provide a graphical representation of facts and events during a period of time. A US presidency is certainly a notable time period. Organizing notable events in a notable time period makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POTENTIAL. The article is sparse but that is grounds for improving it, not deleting it. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Every Wikipedia article is Under Construction. Buster Seven Talk 17:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I don't see why this couldn't evolve into a very strong and useful article. It may have over lapping information with other articles, but it would be presented and organized in a different way. KConWiki (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, I don't see why every U.S. president from Washington through Trump shouldn't have one of these. KConWiki (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi KConWiki, thanks for supporting the existence of these timelines. If you look at Template:US Presidential Administrations, you'll see which timelines already exist, and which don't. Some have existed for a while already, like the Obama, Kennedy, and Ford timelines, while the rest I started in January. I plan to start other timelines very soon. Ethanbas (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Having worked on the Obama timelines for the last 8 years I emphatically support Ethanbus's effort to provide our reader with a concise brief report on the important daily happenings of various American presidents. Buster Seven Talk 17:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it's currently a bit of a crappy article but it's important enough to be included. Deletion isn't clean-up. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it a crappy article? Ethanbas ^(talk) 00:00, 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. I am unsure what the argument is between the nominator and those voting Keep here, but their comments don't have anything to do with the viability of the article. The Delete votes however to point out that the article is unsourced and therefore fails WP:V. The fact that issue hasn't been addressed during this AfD backs that up. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of RHI records (team)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Also WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user seeking to promote the sport of roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Records of the top professional league in a sport are notable and not trivial. They meet the standard of WP:5P in that they are the type of information that would be found in a sports almanac and thus have nothing to do with notstatsbook. Secondly nom is again putting up nom statements that appear to be copy pasted and have nothing to do with the article in question as there is no broken template on the page. And any red links on the page can be filled back in when the articles are inevitable undeleted/recreated, AFD is not for cleanup. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djsasso: yes I copied and pasted because 99% of the pages have the same issue. You are right, this one didn't have any broken templates so I corrected my typo. Wikipedia is NOT a sports almanac and to say that a short lived roller hockey league is a notable professional sport is reaching. The redlinks ARE relevant because they have all been the result of WP:AFD deletions as clearly non-notable. A list of records for a league of questionable notability is insane. No WP:AFD is not for cleanup, but nothing about this list is notable and your arguments have continued to attack me and my motives rather than address the page and its content. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well you prove once again that you don't actually read any policies. The five pillars actually says Wikipedia is actually part Almanac. The redlinks aren't relevant as red links are desireable to expand content. And even if they were deleted with strong Afds they can easily be unlinked. That being said the vast majority that were deleted will likely be overturned once you stop flooding Afd with ridiculous nominations. The season articles for example are pretty standard for professional sports, most likely missed by most people who would have commented since the title of the Afd was only a single playoffs article. The teams that are red linked can easily be created since all the teams have survived Afd now. So that takes care of all the red links if that is such a big deal to you. Quite frankly if I wasn't involved in the topic you would be blocked by now for disruption. And I must point out the irony of complaining about someone attacking your motives, when you have attacked someone elses motives in all your nominations, even on ones they didn't create. -DJSasso (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Unverifiable and unencyclopaedic trivia. A hair's breadth away from being a speedy deletion candidate. This stuff belongs on a fan wiki and nowhere else. Whoever wrote this was probably getting the details from somewhere, rather than making them up, but we have no way to prove this, find out where or whether they copied them correctly. I dispute the claim that this is a "top professional league". I see this as the outer hinterland of professional sports. It was a short-lived experiment that failed to make a sustainable niche for itself as a professional sports franchise. It is not completely non-notable (and I have been happy to !vote keep on some of the other nominations where there were sources to support them) but it is definitely not worthy of a large nest of unreferenced and unverifiable peripheral articles such as this one. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DanielRigal: EXTREMELY well said. You have been quick to point out times where I was wrong, and I believe even gave me a well deserved WP:TROUT or two. Your points here are very well argued. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the records on this page are easily verifiable, they aren't exactly obscure records like most goals in a 3 minute span on a tuesday. All of the records on the page can be verified just by looking at team records using the hockeydb which has been held up as a reliable source on many FAs. -DJSasso (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry but I can't even begin to understand how anybody can defend this article. Are we looking at the same one? All I see is a borderline speedy deletion candidate. It falls foul of many policies. It is a pretty much a poster child for WP:LISTCRUFT OK, that's not a policy but WP:INDISCRIMINATE is and that definitely applies here. The things listed in the article are not genuine "records" they are pretty much random items of sports trivia. You joke about "most goals in a 3 minute span on a tuesday" but a fair bit of what we have here is really only separated from that by a hair's breadth. For example "Fewest points while reaching playoffs" seems egregiously trivial to me. If anybody thinks that this is anything other than indiscriminate then I challenge them to say what the inclusion criteria are here? Your point about verifiability worries me too. It may be that if one were to analyse the stats in HockeyDB (or something similar) then it might be possible to derive most of these alleged "records" but that would fall foul of Wikipedia:No original research. These "records" have to be provided as records by a reliable independent source. If we need to derive them ourselves, as I strongly suspect that the original author did, then that is not valid. So is "Fewest points while reaching playoffs" a genuine and valid record in RHI or in sports more generally? Google says a resounding No! In fact, fully 100% of those four hits are for this article or copies of it! This is utterly indefensible as encyclopaedic content. If it doesn't get deleted this time then it will only get nominated again. In the meantime it serves no purpose except to encourage other misguided people to submit similar cruft about other subjects. That is not only bad for Wikipedia, it is cruel to the poor saps entering their hard derived stats into a Wikipedia article that is likely to be deleted. When people turn up submitting unencyclopaedic stuff like this they should be gently helped to understand why we don't want it and then encouraged to set up a fan wiki somewhere else. Which brings me to one final policy which I think this falls foul of: WP:NOTWEBHOST. There is nothing wrong with having a love of minor sports stats. They just don't belong here. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Lepricavark: read what DanielRigal just said. ACTUALLY read it. Stop judging the articles just based on the fact that I nominated them and actually look at the article. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please stop badgering me. You'll note that I didn't ping you above and ask you to read what Djsasso wrote. Stop judging the articles just based on the fact that they are about roller hockey and actually look at them to ensure that your nom rationales actually fit the articles. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well WP:INDISCRIMINATE definitely doesn't apply because the fact that they are records makes them the dictionary definition of being discriminate because only records are listed, now if we started listing "almost records" etc. then it would be indiscriminate. Then we have original reseach, straight facts and routine calculations can't be original research see Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations so it doesn't violate that either. And it most certainly has nothing to do with WP:NOTWEBHOST because these are in no way a persons attempt at personal web pages or pages related to a different project. If you are going to try and quote policies something fails, at least understand those policies. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - But surely the choice of what we are calling "records" here is arbitrary to the point of being indiscriminate? There is no clear distinction between a notable record and a non-notable item of sports trivia. Your own example of a bad record, "most goals in a 3 minute span on a tuesday", would seem to be acceptable by your logic above. I know that is not your intention but clearly you are drawing a line somewhere where I can't see it because I can't see where the distinction lies. If there is discrimination here I honestly can't see it. It still looks indiscriminate to me. What I would like to see is the same measures (described in similar if not necessarily identical words) being recognised up as being genuine "records" (or an unambiguous synonym) by a reliable source. That source does not have to be talking about RHI. Next up, are these calculations truly routine? Maybe some of them are but others seem quite a bit of a stretch. We don't want to proponents of every crackpot theory going demanding uncritical acceptance of their conclusions because they believe that their derivation is uncontroversial and routine. Finally, I believe that articles of this type do (normally unintentionally) seek to use Wikipedia as a webhost for unencyclopaedic content. In this case it is not that the author was using it to promote himself but that he was creating a WP:walled garden fansite for something he was clearly personally enthused by within Wikipedia. I do not mean to suggest that he was knowingly abusing Wikipedia, only that he made a mistake in thinking this sort of content belonged here. Had he taken it somewhere else he could have had a thriving fan site going by now. Possibly more than one fansite given that his walled garden about the even less notable AIHL got deleted without great controversy quite some time ago. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep none of the reasons given for deletion are actually valid. The page wouldn't be full of redlinks if the nom wasn't on a crusade to wipe everything related to roller hockey from Wikipedia. Lepricavark (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to !vote delete for reasons other than those given in the nomination. Do you really think this article is valid, or are you just making a point about the nomination? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the article is valid. You can consider my comment an endorsement of what Djsasso wrote above. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial and WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This guy again? None of the reasons specified in the nomination are valid. Nominator is being completely disruptive. We need to get the admins involved at this point because this is getting out of hand. Smartyllama (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails basic WP:GNG Article lacks independent reliable sources. Almanacs need to meet this requirement as well. I checked the "HockeyDB.com". and could not find a list of team records. If the article is derived from each team's "Yearly Standings" then it would appear to be nothing more than original research and WP:NOT#OR would apply. I don't see how Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations would apply. Since there are no sources to the article it's hard to make a case for this and if it is copied from hockeydb.com team's "Yearly Standings" it wouldn't apply either. A search of all Google search engines, HighBeam and NYTimes provided no reliable independent sources for this article, in fact, I was unable to find anything related to Roller Hockey International Team Records other than this article or mirrors of it. CBS527^Talk 19:56, 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010 IIHF InLine Hockey World Championship Division I[edit]

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

This championship has been deemed non-notable (there is no article for the championship as a whole - IIHF InLine Hockey World Championship Division I), no reason for articles about each year. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently the nom didn't think other similar articles they nominated being kept unanimously such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 IIHF Inline Hockey World Championship Division I should stop and give him pause that maybe nominating clearly notable world championship articles was a bad idea. Just because a fully fleshed out fork of IIHF InLine Hockey World Championship hasn't been created yet does not mean something is not notable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Djsasso. The lack of respect for consensus shown here is also troubling. I really don't understand why there is such a crusade to delete roller hockey articles. Lepricavark (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This guy again????? Enough already. It's time to get the admins involved. Get him out of here. This is completely disruptive. Smartyllama (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'd suggest a limited merge to the more generic article but, as the nomination says, that has already been deleted. The article is referenced (albeit in a badly non-standard way which makes it appear unreferenced on a first glance) to primary sources. This provides some verifiability but not any proof of notability. If more than one or two of the matches listed received media coverage and can be referenced to independent sources then I'll switch my !vote to "keep" but the onus is on the authors of any article to show notability except where there is a clear policy of automatic notability and this does not do so. It is worrying to look at the history of the article and see multiple authors and yet nobody has addressed even this most basic issue. --DanielRigal (talk)

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

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

The result was delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Day (disambiguation)[edit]

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

As a disambig page with only two entries, it's not needed. The main entry has a hatnote for the non-main entry (same vice-versa) , nobody searches for Jerusalem Day (disambiguation) and there is no linking to this page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:2DABS, Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TWODABS; hatnotes are sufficient. — Gorthian (talk) 22:41, 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 (G12 Blatant Copyvio)' . Alexf^(talk) 16:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Castello[edit]

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

Seems to be either advertising or a copy of http://www.aldesweb.org/en/robertocastello Arkhaminsanity (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE pliss Arkhaminsanity (talk) 16:46, 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Lin[edit]

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

Despite a number of searches around I cannot really see that Clara Lin is a person of note beyond winning something back in 2007. I realise that I am probably missing sources in Chinese, but I really can't see anything here to suggest notability and the sourcing is not really great. At face value, this is about an university student ten years ago who won a couple of contests. I see no article linked to on her on Chinese Wikipedia (deleted? never made?) and Googling for sources, for the variations on her name, isn't very helpful - there is a Clara Lin who is in science, but who probably isn't the same person, and a V&A blog which mentions a Clara Lin who works in a shop in Shanghai, but nothing really compelling. I can't really see a case for her having an article. Mabalu (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. zh:林彦伊 never existed, and that may be an indication that she's not notable although it isn't necessarily. I did some searching on 林彦伊 but from the little I can understand of the Google translation, there's not much coverage found. From all I can tell, she fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, the prize she won does not make her likely notable per WP:ANYBIO, and the article should be deleted per WP:DEL8. I am very willing to change my position, if someone fluent in Chinese can find a handful of good sources. — Sam Sailor 18:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I tried searching too, but found only social media sites and blogs, which might not even be about the same person. Nothing like a reliable source worth looking more closely at. Only 56 results which suggests a complete lack of notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tried both languages and came up with nothing, but why is this included in "List of China-related discussions" when she is Singaporean? Timmyshin (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find any reliable sources in Singpaorean media as well. In addition, looking at the author's contributions Special:Contributions/Musicritic, there seems to be a COI here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:17, 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. joe decker ^talk 06:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of venture capital companies in India[edit]

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

Unreferenced, full of red links. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see where you are coming from, and I think it should probably be trimmed, or have the red links put on the talk page. The thing that makes me want to vote Delete is the fact that the NPP grumps will obstruct the creation of all those redlinks, and they may actually have some reason with Notability and all. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed all the redlinks as per WP:LISTCOMPANY since there were no references to support their inclusion in this list. I also removed any other links where the articles indicated that the VC companies were based in places other than India. I'm leaning towards Delete since this list is a spin out from List of venture capital firms but otherwise I would have been OK with this as a topic. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirley unsourced. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 02:55, 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) 21:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Child[edit]

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

This piece in the Telegraph about her trying to avoid a speeding ticket is the only substantial coverage that I can find of the subject. That obviously isn't suitable for establishing notability, so we are a long way off meeting the notability requirements for biographies. SmartSE (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. ~~I'd but a stub warning, and delete it in 6 months if nothing is done with it~~ . L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm that's not a rationale to keep it. Either the subject is notable or they are not. SmartSE (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Delete By that rationale, I have Reviewed the article, and am changing my vote to delete. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to show notability, or at lest not now. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:03, 7 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 Real estate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury real estate[edit]

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

Delete or Redirect to Real Estate (much as Luxury hotel is redirected to a section in Hotel) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect agree with reasons above L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as luxury real estate is identical to "regular" real estate. A brief mention within Real estate would suffice. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 02:46, 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 , WP:GNG has been met per the inclusion of new sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sian Thomas[edit]

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

Though Sian Thomas seems to have had a solid career in the theatre I can't really see how she meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Her most well known role is a minor character in one of the Harry Potter films. The last line of the article suggests her agent has has a hand in writing this. Thomas is well received by The Guardian but this only amounts to one line in a lengthy review. I can't find anything else of significance. Time for this to go? Sionk (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There do seem to be plenty of major theatre roles (leading ladies), here are some Guardian reviews. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf, leading lady

RSC Macbeth, Lady Macbeth

The Persians, the Queen, "a tremendous performance"

But are they in notable theatre performances? Films and TV series are seen by millions and often widely written about, but theatre productions much less so. She was nominated for a 2003 Laurence Olivier Theatre Award in 2002, but I'm not sure that alone meets WP:NACTOR. Sionk (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These were major productions by serious theatre companies reviewed favourably in national newspapers. Being chosen by the Royal Shakespeare Company to play Lady Macbeth says clearly that an actor is notable. I have added half-a-dozen refs to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article is very old, and has not been appropriately expanded, I say Delete unless we're going do an edit-athon source and incorporate material about her, starting with a picture. Keep L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those reasons form any part of the article deletion criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They form a part of my vote. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I see, but as I thought I'd made clear, they are not valid reasons, and the closing admin will probably therefore not take account of your !vote. Notability does not depend on what is currently in an article, but on what could be there, i.e. what the situation is in the world. Hope this helps a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! I didn't know that! All the deletionist cultists (read: Snuggums) rant on and on about how Notability has to be ascertained in the article itself. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 01:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:ENT, as per Chiswick Chap. The links he gives are major roles at important venues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The GNG has been met. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:28, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Cheng[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject meets WP:N or WP:ATH. He has appeared in junior competitions but hasn't won at the senior level. All cited sources are either basic competition records or Cheng's own sites. A quick Google search shows no useful links or evidence of significant coverage. Doesn't help that the majority of the article is written by inexperienced single-purpose accounts. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lot of figure skating articles exist with dubious notability claims, this is one of them. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This page shouldn't be deleted since all Cheng's competition results and achievements presented on the page have solid evidences with citations of the official website competition results. Language written on the page reads very well. It is good to have this page to share Cheng's skating experiences and development with others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cscec (talk • contribs) 15:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC) — Cscec (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The page is actually poorly written and much of the content is not supported by cited sources and the "it is good to have" amounts to a WP:USEFUL argument, which is to say, not really a good argument. Again, there is no evidence of significant coverage of Cheng and he does not meet WP:NSKATE criteria—he has not medaled at a junior world championships or a senior ISU event, and has not competed at a senior Grand Prix event. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 7 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) 21:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taekwondo Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Non-notable martial arts hall of fame - only references appear to be some obscure football publication. This was previously under PROD but deleted as a creation by banned sock puppet. Suspect the same here too. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources given in the article are from its own web pages. When I search on "taekwondo hall of fame" I find multiple ones with the same name and none of them seem to have any significant independent coverage. Appears to be the same organization (based on the lacancha website) that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Official Taekwondo Hall of Fame. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 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) 16:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Channel IBC[edit]

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

I seriously wonder if this organisation exists. Their domain name seems to be down, and they only echo an alternate news organisation on their Facebook account. If it does exist, it's very likely to be non-notable. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NCORP and GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nonexistant company really fails notability, due to source issues. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:23, 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 speedily deleted by Ad Orientem on Feb 5 for being a copyvio. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chhitauna Bihar India[edit]

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

Cut and paste creation out of (at least some of) the sources. No meaningful article The Banner talk 12:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article appears to have been copied from some sort of table. Zyc1174 (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a mishmash. bd2412 T 01:45, 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 redirect to Streamstown per suggestion of Cerebellum. Not enough references for its own article but no harm in sticking a sentence into the main Streamstown article with a ref. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Streamstown Harriers[edit]

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

This article has no claim of notability and no sources that indicate notability. Streamstown is a small Irish village. Article could be merged with the Streamstown article. Rogermx (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. Most search hits I can find mirror Wikipedia. A mention in a local hunting paper (The Irish Field) but nothing to suggest any significance. The association they're registered with is also quite hard to find anything about online and not included on Wikipedia. Mortee (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Streamstown. None of the sources I found had significant coverage - [16], [17], [18]. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:46, 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. Sandstein 14:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graph Commons[edit]

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

Promotional piece about not notable website. Written like an advert or brochure, and seems largely or wholly to be based on first party sources, i.e. writings by the creators of the site on it; searching turns up nothing apart from more of the same sorts of sources and incidental mentions. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources seemed good at first glance, but I'm finding that they are either trivial mentions or they are not independent of the site's founder. - MrOllie (talk) 04:20, 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lindsay[edit]

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

Non notable actor fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He seems to have credits in various roles on a number of notable movies, but I cannot find any coverage of him apart from IMDb.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is the most trusted site for listing actors credits. Greg has been in a numerous shows and movies. Here are other links: https://www.facebook.com/pg/GregLindsay.net/about http://charmed.wikia.com/wiki/Greg_Lindsay vzhare.com/watch/932425686855353 celebrities.prettyfamous.com/l/315981/Greg-Lindsay http://celebrityimages.org/celebrity/512226/612803 http://flapperscomedy.com/site/index.php?pg=showdetail_page&id=26868 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelinzla (talk • contribs) 21:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. IMDB, Facebook, CelebrityImages, Wikia etc. are all "Self-Created Sources" - meaning they are pages that anybody can edit. @Thelinzla:, have a read through this page - it gives examples of the types of sources you need to use. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:36, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paymatrix[edit]

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

Submitting to AfD since this went thru AfC, but there are no sources & it's a one year old company with no apparent claims to meeting WP:GNG. Reads like a WP:PROMO piece. JamesG5 (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft: The article history indicates that it hasn't gone through the AfC process (which it should have no chance of passing, given its complete lack of references) but was just created in mainspace with the AfC tag. Probably the right thing to do would be to move it to Draft. (That said, I doubt an article on an online service whose Alexa rating is 164,107 in its operating country will come through.) AllyD (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft or Delete as unreferenced. Prefer move to draft, although it is is likely to expire there. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. As it is clear that this is going to be Corporate spam. Light2021 (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete alone only because it's clear company advertising and there's enough showing it violates our overall policies, there's no hopes of sufficient improvements when it's company self-motivated. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete --I think it will be a snowball's chance in hell that it will make the cut at AFC even with radical changes from the current version.Winged Blades^Godric 11:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMOTION a strong case for speedy.FITINDIA (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could have been speedy deleted under ((db-g11)). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:08, 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 delete. Page has already been deleted. (non-admin closure) Samario: Talk page 14:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vilniaus dailės akademijos leidykla[edit]

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

The article has been deleted twice in Lithuanian Wikikipedia. Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as apparent copyright violation from [19]. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:26, 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Top Achiever Scouts[edit]

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

Questionable notability. There doesn't appear to be any sources besides primary ones. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be affiliated to the World Scout Foundation so perhaps a merge there would be appropriate.--Bduke (Discussion) 01:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request admin void three related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Sudan Girl Guides Association/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Top Achiever Scouts/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stowarzyszenie Harcerstwa Katolickiego Zawisza as WP:WIKIHOUNDING by User:Sportsfan 1234 per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Harassment.23Wikihounding_by_User:Sportsfan_1234- There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as found two secondary sources--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://pojoksatu.id/pendidikan/2016/08/21/ditutup-hari-jambore-nasional-pramuka-2016-berhasil-pecahkan-8-rekor-dunia/
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-2837728181.html Daily News (Colombo, Sri Lanka) December 12, 2012

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage. The first added ref is about a jamboree, not this organization. The second is about the election of a Scouting official to a council, again not about this organization. They are both mere passing mentions. The only other sources are directly associated. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 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 Userfy. No editor argued the topic met notability criteria, but no concerns about were expressed (or are visible to me) which would argue against userfication. joe decker ^talk 06:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shigeo Iwatani[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. coverage is not about him as the subject but rather him commenting as a representative of the Japanese government. ambasssadors are not inherently notable. nor being from a "major country". LibStar (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find any RS except passing mentions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Japanese wiki article does not provide anything that points towards notability. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I agree the subject isn't notable just now but I'd like the closing admin to put this in my userspace so I can work on it over the next few years. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -fails WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Chris Troutman's request. Ambassadors are accepted as notable if they can be reliably sourced over WP:GNG, but they are not accepted as automatically notable just because they exist, if their mere existence is all you can actually reference. Normally I'd just vote to delete, but since Chris is willing to adopt this with an eye to possibly salvaging it, he should be given that opportunity. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 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. Article is found to be promotional in nature and lacking the requisite notability for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stealthmachines[edit]

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

A couple of product reviews & a BBB page IMO don't meet WP:GNG, doesn't looking like much third party coverage. Also given multiple attempts to create this article & some of the language in it this looks like WP:PROMO. JamesG5 (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article was flagged for removal within seconds of its creation, to me this article was not looked over by the editor with the same care that I put into it. Maximum PC and PC World are both internationally recognized media outlets, and PC World is part of the massive IGN network. Tech Syndicate is a VERY popular alternative tech news outlet. The lesser sources provide additional legitimacy to the company/article, but are not depended upon for the article's substance (although they were included so that the article was more of a full read). The major sources of the article as the major outlets provide more than enough legitimacy to the article and its statements.

Multiple attempts to create the article did occur, yes, as I was told after painstakingly making the necessary edits that my written article would be included. Also, comparable companies with comparable sources such as Digital Storm have gotten the nod for years, and yet my article which I have been doing my darndest to comply whilst working with reviewers has been declined.

Thank you for your time. -Argusg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argusg (talk • contribs) 06:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Argusg: Most of the references fail WP:RS as they are either a Google Search result (which isn't regarded as a reference at all), PRIMARY sources (those with facts/data attributed to the company or quotes from the company), Press Releases or simple business listings which are mere passing references. All of the Tek and Pax East references are promotional and PRIMARY.

But - there are two that I regard as being good quality. Once is the MaximummPC reference that appears tobe a reliable independent third party that provides details about the company and reviews a product. The other is the PCWorld reference - again meets the criteria. But two product reviews are not enough to denote notability - can you provide any more (that meet the criteria at WP:RS)? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the PC World and MaximumPC references which you said were good were both cover page articles, not mere reviews. The Tek Syndicate is as big as MaximumPC with millions of viewers, and they have StealthMachines on their website twice - see for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0 . The videos about StealthMachines are not promotional in nature. If you would please watch the example video and the actual StealthMachines videos to see the non-promotional, non-biased style of this media outlet which is a trusted source for millions of viewers.

Jerma985 has over 500,000 subscribers and over 100 videos with 500,000+ views, including many videos with almost 2 million reviews, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU6WC4dpaHM

I changed the article again, please review. I just want an article made, you can cut the article down to three sentences for all I care, I just want to have my first published article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argusg (talk • contribs) 17:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard anything new in some time regarding my edits. While I await further assistance, I would like to make sure the following Wikipedia principles are applied to this process:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_rules_are_principles

It's no small fact that there are currently hundreds of other boutique companies listed on Wikipedia which are equally as relevant and sourced as this article. This article was painstakingly written, edited, and re-edited to meet the editors standards. Please, help it grow, don't snuff my quiet voice out. contribs) 2 Feb. 2017

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The existence of similar content is not a valid argument for inclusion. —swpb^T 15:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was told in early 2016 if I just added one more notable source this article would be included. Since 2016, PCWorld placed a StealthMachines article on their homepage and a patent was added to the company's history. In my eyes, if the article BARELY didn't have enough sources a year ago, and the very best source it now has was since created, this article should be good to go.

@swpb - If similar content is permitted to exist but this article is not, that should be grounds for deletion of the similar content. Alternatively, this article is good to go, and should be treated as such. Notwithstanding, that other equally notable boutique computer companies have an article was not my main point... please address my OTHER more valid points. Thank you.

DELETE. WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV. WP:COI strongly suspected as this editor has only edited this article except for this edit adding the subject company's name to a list. The article reads like it was written by the company's marketing intern. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:53, 8 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Alberta Winter Games[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alberta Winter Games, which per WP:NSEASONS is preferable when individual seasons or iterations of a sporting event are non-notable but the sporting event itself is. Smartyllama (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:02, 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, 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) 05:43, 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 . Primary editor is blocked and the article has never been deleted before, so I don't see a justification for WP:SALT at this time. I'll stick it on my watchlist and deal with it if it gets recreated improperly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Uddin[edit]

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

After several source searches, this subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. Only finding passing mentions such as [20] and [21]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt – The primary editor seems to be the same person mentioned in the article and seems a vehement WP:COI in the article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per North America's rationale. Full disclosure: I've blocked the current primary editor on spam/promotion only grounds, and one older account. There's at least a third account, but has not edited since 2007. -- ferret (talk) 12:43, 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) 21:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna Have a Party... Live[edit]

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

Minimal sourcing at best, just a single Allmusic review and a source that only verifies that the album contains a cover of a Bachman-Turner Overdrive song. Album did not chart anywhere, was not certified, and does not contain any notable material. Redirect undone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article sources contain about four sentences of coverage. My searches found various books that include this album in their list of Alabama albums. Nothing helpful to notability. Gab4gab (talk) 22:16, 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 'Snow keep' (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability is not inherited, and subject fails WP:Notability (people) since she wasn't really noted for anything meaningful that doesn't have to do with family affiliations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, she is not the mother of Donald Trump the businessman, but Donald Trump the president of the United States. Parents of Presidents are almost always considered notable enough for their own articles, especially given the large amount of attention they have received. MB298 (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a President's parent isn't some automatic free pass at warranting a page; people need to be noted for their own merits regardless of who they are, not just simply for family connections. The notion that such parents "are almost always considered notable enough for their own articles" is also exaggerated at best when many don't have or warrant their own pages. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the mother of the current US president. There are plenty of sources available to write a good article. Brad v 04:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter; see my above point. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does matter. See WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Brad v 04:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumed" doesn't necessarily mean "is". As I stated before, subjects need to be noted for their own merits. She certainly isn't noted for any individual merits (i.e. not having to do with family connections). The relevant criteria for biographies is WP:Notability (people). Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep quoting then. WP:N says A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline . And "presumed" is further defined at WP:GNG—I suggest reading it. Brad v 04:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have in fact read that, and it states "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included". It goes on to say "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article". Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep going: —perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What part of WP:PLOT does this violate? Brad v 04:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the WP:PLOT section of WP:What Wikipedia is not (which that page links) might not apply here, the section WP:NOTGENEALOGY does; Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a site full of genealogical entries of families. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this part? Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. That's a pretty thin argument, especially since that section is specifically about lists. Brad v 05:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the part I meant, though it actually isn't such a thin point; this article doesn't really serve much (if any) purpose aside from perhaps sharing some MacLeod/Trump family history. It doesn't really aid people's understanding of Donald or even Fred Trump. The section also isn't entirely about lists. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But what is there is well-sourced, and there are plenty more sources available. Therefore it meets WP:GNG. Brad v 05:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a subject is mentioned in good quality sources doesn't automatically mean it should have an article. As noted before, it creates an assumption, not a guarantee that a separate page is warranted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but there still needs to be a compelling reason to delete, and so far you haven't provided one. Brad v 05:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I clearly indicated that she wasn't independently noted for anything of her own merit. It's a case of WP:BIO1E at best (the event or "1E" in this instance referring to her marriage to Fred or maybe giving birth to Donald, but either way is based on family connections instead of her own merits). Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't generally agree that being any person's parent makes someone notable in their own right, but this is an exception in WP consensus. Ann Dunham article only exists because her son was president. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not the focus here, and Ann was actually noted for more than just being Obama's mother. I also wouldn't go so far as to say there's any real "exception" here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton's father who died three months before his birth was a traveling salesman and not notable for anything other than being the father of a President. While Obama's parents may have had some notability outside of relations, do you really expect we would have those articles if Obama wasn't president? MB298 (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to say about whether such articles would be around, but that's irrelevant because—as I stated before—WP:OTHERSTUFF is not the focus here, and whether those people have articles or not isn't a good reason at all to keep this one. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of stories are written about her in major publications, more than are referenced already. Naturally, people are interested in Trump's parents. I understand WP:OTHERSTUFF, but this seems to be an established consensus due to the interest in the parents of presidents (it also extends to grandparents in some cases). Read the essay WP:OTHERSTUFF: "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." In this case, "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides." Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING isn't a good enough argument either. That and WP:OTHERSTUFF also actually are part of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (though I can understand the confusion), and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? states you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. The WP:INTERESTING section states personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING refers to personal interest – i.e., whether I personally find the subject interesting. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about general interest, which is the root of notability. In a nutshell, we can reasonably expect any parent of a US President to attract enough attention to be notable per WP:BASIC. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a stretch for expectations. WP:BASIC also states "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not." The "event" in some cases pertain to a relationship. WP:NOTNEWS states Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. In other words, people (including parents) may have done something involving others (such as their children), but that doesn't necessarily mean they're notable in their own right. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD seems to be very important to you. I'm just going to leave this here. And this. Déjà vu? Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mom of incumbent POTUS is notability. Lay off the hate tea infused with NOTINHERITED extract. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 15:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "hate tea" involved, and being a president's parent isn't in itself a good enough reason to have an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG, no reason to vary from the general practice and consensus here that presidents' parents get their own articles. There's already more substantive detail in this article than would fit comfortably in the main Donald Trump article (currently 323,261 bytes), or among the brief biographical summaries at Family of Donald Trump, so this separate article is also warranted per WP:SPINOFF. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't exactly a such a "consensus"; being a President's parent is by no means an automatic free pass at warranting an article. Articles should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Some parents warrant articles, and others don't. This is one of those that doesn't since she wasn't truly noted for anything meaningful of her own merit (i.e. outside of family affliations). She honestly doesn't warrant more than a redirect to a Trump family page. See WP:MASK and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the previous "Keep" arguments. Whatever feelings one may have regarding President Trump, such feelings cannot be posthumously reflected against his mother who has become a high-traffic, high-visibility entry upon this article's creation 11 days after the election. Since immigration to the U.S. is one of the key features in the current administration's agenda, all details of the president's family's immigrant past, acquire, in retrospect, highly symbolic importance. As is already evident on the first day of !voting, there will never be a consensus for deletion. In fact, judging by the early comments, there even appears a potential for WP:SNOW keep. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those votes are flawed, and this has nothing to do with personal feelings about the President. Calling her article "high-traffic" is (so far) just exaggerating, though its traffic level is moot regardless. His importance has nothing to do with how important (or unimportant) she is. Notability is actually NOT inherited; him being in office does not enhance parental significance at all, regardless of the administration agenda. Let's also not jump to conclusions so quickly less than 24 hours after an AFD has started. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - of all the trivial articles on Wikipedia one could nominate as AFD, it seems odd to choose one about the mother of the President of the United States.Larrybob (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed lots of trivial articles, but that's not the focus here per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Being a president's mother isn't in itself enough to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given President Trump's strong anti-immigration policies, the immigration status of his mother is of immense interest to many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.85.204 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING isn't a very good point. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per all the above Keep arguments. I wish to note that per WP:OWN no one is in charge of this discussion, so I do not think it is appropriate for anyone to get in the face of every person who has a comment. AFAICT the burden of justification for deletion has utterly failed to have been met. Again, it is NOT good form for anybody to counter each person in knee-jerk fashion. The only argument for deletion is basically that we don't absolutely HAVE to have the article, which is no argument at all. Let's close this, already. It's utter nonsense. --IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've blatantly distorted things; my point for not warranting an article actually was that the subject wasn't noted for anything of her own merit. While I find previously given points to be flawed, there isn't any "ownership" or "getting in the face" going on here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she's had sufficient coverage to meet GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that none if it was based on individual merit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to apply guidelines as if they are rules to be followed as strictly as possible. Our guidelines allow for exceptions and say they are to interpreted using common sense. Thincat (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "common sense" isn't actually common, so that is therefore a meaningless term. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps you'd better get consensus for a change to the text at the top of all our guidelines. Or just consider that maybe it is your sense that is a bit uncommon. Thincat (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the diversity of senses that exist, tons of people have senses that others might find uncommon. In short, too many senses exist for there to truly be a "common" one. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the best available information for our President's family history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obermayerm (talk • contribs) 00:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a family history site per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look up any other president and you will see that their parents also have a page . . .even if it just because they are the parent of a U.S. president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarthaBrownee (talk • contribs) 00:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No; not EVERY presidential parent has (or warrants) an article. Please don't make hyperbolic exaggerations. Besides, that isn't in itself a good reason to keep articles anyway, and whether other subjects have articles or not is irrelevant to this discussion per WP:OTHERSTUFF, which states you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't need to go back very far. No article for Dorothy Walker Bush (it is a redirect). However, both Bill Clinton's parents have articles and they don't seem to have been otherwise notable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would someone please close this discussion? This process has been bludgeoned to death, and the article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted. Brad v 01:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - What is notable in this instance is the means by which Mary Anne came to the USA, which while common and acceptable at the time, is in contrast to her son's current attitudes to those who shaped the nation and continue to do so! That information should remain in the public domain and accessible.Just thinking australia (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Her U.S. entrance isn't really a reason to keep, and her son's policies don't affect her anyway when she died years before he even ran for office. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If someone is the mother of the man who is currently the most influential man on earth, then she deserves her own article just on the basis of being his mother. Also, it's interesting that Donald Trump disparaged certain groups of immigrants during his campaign and is currently trying to keep Muslim immigrants out of the country, while his own mother was an immigrant, so this article should stay. Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, notability IS NOT inherited from relationships. People warrant articles when actually noted for their own merits. She isn't one of those people. Any meaningful data on her could easily be included on his page, husband Fred Trump's page, or a Trump family article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep There are enough sources to establish independent notability.LM2000 (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny that there are sources talking about her, but they aren't based on her own merits. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know WP:NOTINHERITED is an issue in most cases but coverage of Presidents is intense and it spills over onto everything and everyone around them. I find it hard to believe that Bo (dog) would have an article if he hadn't been adopted by occupants of the White House.LM2000 (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. MB298 (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 15 votes for keep and 1 vote for delete (nominator). MB298 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the result is clear, it is important to emphasize that notability decisions need be based in some objective manner on coverage in reliable and verifiable sources about the subject, a standard that is clearly met here and at all 20 of the articles in the structure Category:Mothers of Presidents of the United States. Arguments for deletion cannot be based on the utterly subjective judgment that "she wasn't really noted for anything meaningful". Alansohn (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be downplayed that subjects need to be noted for their own merits rather than simply who their families are. She isn't noted for her own merits at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people) is rather clear in stating that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." and that "All biographies of living individuals must comply with the policy on biographies of living individuals, being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality." These standards are met here. SNUGGUMS, the requirement that you set demanding "that subjects need to be noted for their own merits rather than simply who their families are" is your own arbitrary standard, without any basis in Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, WP:BIOFAMILY (a section of the page you linked) states that "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". I doubt anyone can name something she was noted for that doesn't have to do with family. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIOFAMILY simply states that someone is not notable merely based on the existence of a relationship to another notable. Mary Anne MacLeod Trump merits her own article because she has a strong claim of notability as one of 20 Category:Mothers of Presidents of the United States, and that claim is backed up by reliable and verifiable sources about her. There is nothing at WP:BIOFAMILY (or anywhere else in Wikipedia:Notability (people)) that requires that the person must have done something that meets your standard of merit; the acid test standard is that the "person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and that standard is met. Alansohn (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Strong claim" is far from the case since simply being a President's mother isn't enough on its own to warrant an article. "Presumed" also doesn't automatically mean "is". Not everyone in mentioned in sources warrants an article. Her page is little to nothing more than a piece of some MacLeod/Trump family history, and Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a family history site per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. It doesn't exactly aid the understanding of truly significant topics (which would be Fred and Donald). Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep YGBSM! If there weren't already numerous WP:RS, there soon would be. Not even pretended compliance with WP:Before. An encyclopedia article on the 45th President's mother should be here. Another deletionist waste of my time, and the valuable time of a lot of other editors. We all could have been doing something useful in the encyclopedia. Just sayin' .... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being a President's mother isn't at all enough to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep bleating it ad infinitum. You are doing it alone, and you have not a colorable claim to "even pretended compliance with WP:Before." That you can parrot yourself doesn't make your argument any more persuasive. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've said a variant of 'president's mom doesn't make her notable' 32 times (but who's counting). We get it. We disagree. Let's close this discussion and move on. Nothing to debate here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem when looking through sources is none of them show viable evidence she was noted for anything that didn't have to do with family. Any useful data is better placed in a Trump family article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ADMIN PLEASE CLOSE Widr Sro23 Ad Orientem Agathoclea DrmiesAs has been stated above, this is bludgeoned, and I don't think enough homies are goign to show up to force the vote from 15-1 keep to something less clear. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, I don't know why I was mentioned here. Sro23 (talk) 02:32, 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 snow close as delete + redirect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Border policy of Donald Trump[edit]

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

I can't find a speedy category that applies here, and I'm tempted to just nix this via administrative fiat: it is the most POV piece of work I've seen on Wikipedia. There isn't a single sentence in it that is neutral. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP policy, WP:POVFORK of Immigration policy of Donald Trump. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear POVFORK. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- NorthBySouthBaranof, perhaps you can explain to User:Impartial Unbiased Triumph how this stuff is not neutral. I'm old and tired and they don't get it. And maybe you can comment on what "fact" means too... Drmies (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is any useful content (I don't see any, but maybe), it can be merged into Immigration policy of Donald Trump, which is where it should have gone in the first place. We need NPOV articles, not separate articles for each point of view. Brad v 03:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional; this isn't the place for POV forks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Immigration policy of Donald Trump. MB298 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, a redirect would be smart because much of the talk is about "borders" so this title may be what people are looking for. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:POVFORK is obvious. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a WP:POVFORK and, as Drmies says, pure propaganda. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, obvious WP:POVFORK. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Immigration policy of Donald Trump. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious POV fork. Mathsci (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious POV fork. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flat Out (talk • contribs) 05:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Looks like a useful title to redirect from but the current content is, as others have said, a POV fork. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Plausible search term, but POV fork from that article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly redundant to the immigration policy page. Also, the very different (that is, laudatory) tone of this page makes me think it is a POVFORK as other people have said. If there is dispute as to how the immigration policy is to be described, the dispute needs to be settled to a consensus, not an additional page with one's preferred POV created. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 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) 21:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luca A Longobardi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca A Longobardi; moved to draft by user request. Added to, but in my opinion not basically improved, but moved to mainspace nonetheless.

The earlier mistaken identity accounts of his life are a classic ONEEVENT of no lasting interest. As for the book, it is not even in Worldcat, which is a bare minimum. As for the films, one is a video promotion for the non-notable book, and the other won a very minor award--the Best Inspiration Film is not an annual award, it's a monthly award and 12 are given each year in the category. I wanted to check that I'm not engaging in cultural bias, as WorldCat is not all the good for current Italian books, so I checked and he's not in the itWP.

The restaurant he owns is probably notable, and so is the chef. I don't see how it makes the owner notable. The references added are about the restaurant, not Longobardi. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've moved the article to Luca Longobardi. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 09:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, the restaurant may be notable but this does not make the owner notable. Just another pushy nudnik.TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNG the references provided give significant coverage of the subject in my opinion (apart from ref #1, which is only used for his full name in the infobox). The fact that Interpol issued a Red Notice for him, the highest-level alert they give, should show that his wasn't just any other wrongful arrest and give some degree of lasting interest. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nom and the long talk on the talk page. This is just another person trying to use WP as a promotional tool for his own ends, the page was deleted once and he engaged a paid editor to try and push it through again without initially declaring his COI under the pretext that he has not been paid yet. Domdeparis (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur with my past comments, I only accepted it by the bare reviews, which in our policies, are simply not enough; overall there's enough concerns to suggest it's still unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Terrible Mistake[edit]

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

Published through Trine Day, which describes itself as a small publishing house that arose as a response to the consistent refusal of the corporate press to publish many interesting, well-researched and well-written books with but one key “defect”: a challenge to official history that would tend to rock the boat of America’s corporate “culture”, has not attracted any significant notice that I can see, and the article we have is frankly promotional. Mangoe (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable outside of its conspiracy theory bubble. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per WP:NBOOK. This is one of over 130,000,000 published books. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only two relevant sources I could find are a flattering introductory presentation from an Albarelli book launch event that was reprinted by a Daily Kos blogger, and a Huffpo article that WP:REDFLAG-ishly states the claims in Alabarelli's book are 100% true. Since the book claims the CIA deliberately poisoned a French town and later murdered one of their scientists because he knew too much, I'm not sure how we could build an objective article from those sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - book fails our tests of notability, even among fringe topics. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found brief mentions here and there, but nothing that would be seen as an in-depth reliable source. The HuffPo article was put out by their blogger network and wasn't an article written by one of their reporters, so it would be seen as a SPS. There just doesn't seem to be anything out there in places Wikipedia would consider reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK, no coverage in reliable sources and published by dubious publishing house. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Woodell[edit]

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

Deceased individual who appears to have been very active in the Oakland, CA community. This article seems to be have been created by a relative as a memorial. WP:NOTOBITUARY applies here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in assuming this is created by a relative. I am in the process of managing the information so that it does not serve as a memorial, rather as the biography of a significant historical figure in the Oakland community. User jwoodell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwoodell (talk • contribs) 02:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Jwoodell (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anne served on several City Councils and boards of trustees. Her work is documented in city council meetings of Oakland.

I see that changes have been made that make it more in line with other biographical articles in terms of formatting, but our guideline on politicians says that simply being a local politician does not make one notable. She would need to pass our general notability guideline. It appears that most of the coverage of her is just passing coverage in local papers, which generally does not meet our guidelines on notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry for the loss of this wonderful and much-loved person, but this in not an appropriate place for the biography. I'm glad she did so much for Oakland. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete members of city park and rec boards and other positions she held are not of the level to make a politician notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casanova Frankenstein[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage about this author, from independent reliable secondary sources to show that this person meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the available sources are largely print-only which makes it more difficult to determine notabiliy. Can we get some indie comix experts into this conversation? Who could be invited? Thmazing (talk) 18:03, 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 02:16, 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Fono[edit]

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

This WP:COI written article fails WP:GNG. I have searched and could not find much in terms of reliable secondary sources. Domdeparis (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable game designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 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. joe decker ^talk 05:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Sinner[edit]

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

An unremarkable film studio that lacks sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. The article is cited to interviews, industry publicity materials and other sources not suitable for notability.

The award listed (Feminist Porn Award) is not significant and well known. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The references are not independent and fail WP:RS -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely lacking in independent reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:CORP. Supplied references are affiliated sources, press releases and blog posts. RS searches yield more republished press releases and other promotional announcements. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:47, 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 keep , and have moved the page to Mukesh Choudhary to correct the capitalization. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh choudhary[edit]

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

PROD removed by author without explanation. Still fails POLITICIAN and GNG as my PROD stands. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 01:49, 30 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} 01:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 01:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 01:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NPOL. He is sitting Member of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The author seems to be from a non English Speaking background and a newbie to wikipedia, that does not make the subject non notable. ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ChunnuBhai. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:42, 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 deleted in another discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheetal Agashe. Kurykh (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaustubh Marathe[edit]

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

Co-founder of a non-notable company fails to pass WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also nominated the following articles for deletion created by the same sock master Simbalillyoreo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Sheetal Agashe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adi Agashé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – GSS (talk|c|em) 06:41, 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 01:37, 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 14:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheetal Agashe[edit]

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

Delete or Redirect to Brihans Natural Products Ltd. per WP:OUTCOMES. The subject fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No indication of independent notability. I tried but can't find any significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in details. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also nominated the following articles for deletion created by the same sock master Simbalillyoreo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Adi Agashé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kaustubh Marathe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – GSS (talk|c|em) 06:39, 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 01:35, 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Beltran[edit]

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

Best known for a non-speaking role? Owen (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not meeting WP:NACTOR. We don't give encyclopedia articles to extras or actors in non-notable films. Subject's personal life appears to have gained some fleeting news coverage, but focusing on that alone would be a WP:BLP violation. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:06, 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Cup[edit]

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

Spam for the company linked to in the only external link. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not spam. I think the promotional content needs to be reduced, yes; the article however also gives general information about the situation in Kenya where the company is trying to help women with menstrual hygiene difficulties. I did notice a potential conflict of interest though regarding one of the editors (with user name "rubycup") - please see talk page of the article when it is undeleted. I guess the main problem is that there are not sufficient secondary sources about ruby cup yet - right? EvMsmile (talk) 10:55, 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 01:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or perhaps merge a small amount of content to menstrual cup with a redirect, if there's an avenue for that there. However I don't think this company meets WP:GNG based on the lack of reliable independent sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:27, 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland at the 2015 Games of the Small States of Europe[edit]

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

No content besides saying the country competed at the event (which can be found on the main article). Also the page is unreferenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the following for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Articles serve no purpose other than redirecting to sports results. Ajf773 (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because an article is almost empty does not mean that it can't or won't be expanded.--Snaevar (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Snaevar (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and improve the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nominator. This information can all be found at the main page for the event by year, there is no need to have separate articles for each country each year. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment: @PMC: I am fine with you voting delete but you are making false claims here. In the time between the nomination of the Icelandic article until you voted the Icelandic article has specified 15 medallists. The claims the nominator made are now incorrect and your comment of all the information being available on the main page is completely false.--Snaevar (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to slightly re-word: "This information ~~can~~ should all be found at the main page for the event by year, there is no need to have separate articles for each country each year." Seriously, we're hosting all this information three times - at the main games by year article, at the country by year article, and at the sport by year article. And then lather rinse repeat for every year the games occur? Totally not necessary. There's gotta be a clean way to do this all in one article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all – pointless articles; nothing but an unseemly list of redirects. Laurdecl ^talk 09:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Article is basically a link farm with a 2-sentence Lead. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:02, 8 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) 15:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Batrakov[edit]

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

Unproven notability. XXN, 14:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:06, 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 01:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable taekwondo athlete. Single event does not meet any threshold.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Taekwondodata.com shows his only success is winning two matches at the 2012 Israel Open. His current world ranking is a 40 way tie for 632nd. He has no appearances at a world championship or Olympics. At best his notability falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 22:15, 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 speedy delete per criterion A7, person with no assertion of significance or importance. Autobiography sourced exclusively to primary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Amoure[edit]

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

Google search shows no evidence of third-party notability, only her own web site and her Facebook and her Instagram. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This got tagged for speedy deletion the same time it was nominated for deletion through AfD. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this autobiography is speedy-deleted, the AFD can be closed. If the admin decides that a credible claim of significance has been made, then the AFD can run. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 01:35, 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaly Nesis[edit]

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

Unproven notability. XXN, 15:18, 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 01:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only claims to significance being made here are the subject's relationships with his company and his brother. Neither is enough to establish notability for the subject himself. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:40, 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katkuri[edit]

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

PROD was reverted without explanation by an anon. The rationale was " Fails WP:GNG. No sources available - the reference given doesn't even appear in the alleged author's bio article and that author is primarily a poet etc anyway. This almost seems like a hoax and its creator made just the one contribution way back in 2009." I stand by that. Sitush (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. 8 years and no verifiable sources. Note article is also an orphan, suggesting no-one involved in related subjects has sought to link back, potentially because there is no link - this may be a hoax. Rayman60 (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with above. Article was created by SPA with only one edit ever which created this article in 2009. Prod was removed without comment by IP in 2017 with only one edit ever. Not sure what is going on here, but I couldn't find any RS. It is a Indian surname used by around 7k people in India and two dozen in the U.S. MB 01:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whilst I might not go as far as to say that this is a hoax, there is clearly no evidence of notability provided Spiderone 20:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:27, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhat View Kindergarten[edit]

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

Can't see that this kindergarten has any coverage in reliable sources and is therefore not notable. Sam Walton (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, not covered by reliable sources. (Would require cleanup of promotional content if it were notable, but it isn't notable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any trace of Notability either. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above Light2021 (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be primarily a PR piece. Montanabw^(talk) 10:25, 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.

I.R.S. Records Presents The Cutting Edge[edit]

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Wylie pedia 12:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article consists entirely of one infobox, one reference, and a one-paragraph lead (which makes up the entire content). Not notable at all. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Retracting my nomination for deletion. It's obvious that the article is being expanded upon, which is great. (However, it really ought to be done in the draft namespace.) The article appeared as such when I nominated it for deletion, which was my reasoning. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This show ran on MTV for years and the usual searches turn up substantial coverage in reliable sources, including for example this book about the history if MTV; a substantial article in a 1985 Billboard; this university press book discussing one episode's important impact on the Austin music scene of the mid 1980s; a 1985 LA Times article that calls it "the best program about pop music that we have". Passes GNG and suitable for improvement, not deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it shouldn't be deleted, it should be moved to the draft space. There is nowhere near enough content to declare it a valid article. It's existed for 8 years and has a total of 27 edits to the article - it's obviously not going to be expanded any further. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see that the article is being improved, and it now has at least enough substance and cited references to fully establish notability. Keep on improving! Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article content does not determine notability. Has been greatly improved and you can add this source to the list of coverage as well. TimothyJosephWood 18:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG Mecha Bieber (talk) 05:51, 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.

New York/New Jersey Rockers[edit]

Rami Zeedan[edit]

Christophoros (Rakintzakis)[edit]

Reporting illegal aliens in the United States[edit]

Falen Bonsett[edit]

E. Lamont Johnson[edit]

Nius X[edit]

FitLifeDXB[edit]

NoStringsNG.com[edit]

Attempted assassination of Donald Trump[edit]

You Don't Know Me (Elizabeth Gillies song)[edit]

Christmas on the Coosa[edit]

MarketTools[edit]

The Incomplete Glenn Tilbrook[edit]

Steve Ernst[edit]

My Little Heart[edit]

PikoTarism[edit]

Rejectionism[edit]

List of Family Feud (2016 Philippine game show) episodes[edit]

Youngest players to score in the Premier league[edit]

Timeline of the presidency of George W. Bush[edit]

List of RHI records (team)[edit]

2010 IIHF InLine Hockey World Championship Division I[edit]

Jerusalem Day (disambiguation)[edit]

Roberto Castello[edit]

Clara Lin[edit]

List of venture capital companies in India[edit]

Helen Child[edit]

Luxury real estate[edit]

Sian Thomas[edit]

Antony Cheng[edit]

Taekwondo Hall of Fame[edit]

Channel IBC[edit]

Chhitauna Bihar India[edit]

Streamstown Harriers[edit]

Graph Commons[edit]

Gregory Lindsay[edit]

Paymatrix[edit]

Vilniaus dailės akademijos leidykla[edit]

Association of Top Achiever Scouts[edit]

Shigeo Iwatani[edit]

Stealthmachines[edit]

2010 Alberta Winter Games[edit]

Keith Uddin[edit]

Gonna Have a Party... Live[edit]

Mary Anne MacLeod Trump

Border policy of Donald Trump[edit]

Luca A Longobardi[edit]

A Terrible Mistake[edit]

Anne Woodell[edit]

Casanova Frankenstein[edit]

David Fono[edit]

Sweet Sinner[edit]

Mukesh choudhary[edit]

Kaustubh Marathe[edit]

Sheetal Agashe[edit]

Victoria Beltran[edit]

Ruby Cup[edit]

Iceland at the 2015 Games of the Small States of Europe[edit]

Ilya Batrakov[edit]

Lilly Amoure[edit]

Vitaly Nesis[edit]

Katkuri[edit]

Prabhat View Kindergarten[edit]

I.R.S. Records Presents The Cutting Edge[edit]