< 4 January	6 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The result was Withdrawn. WP:SNOW would've applied anyways. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Chicago torture incident[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." I don't think this random attack will have enduring notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is getting a huge amount of coverage - this is more than just "news." And it was not a "random" attack - the suspects are being charged with committing a hate crime. The fact that it was livestreamed on Facebook also makes it notable. Bk33725681 (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per coverage. per unusual case of reversed hate crime. good sources. has received attention world wide.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is definitely getting a lot of news coverage, even the president has commented on it. The page just needs to be worked on. Benbuff91 20:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fixed my own error and changed the title to 2017 Chicago torture incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bk33725681 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep The subject is obviously notable. That said the article is not in great shape and needs expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Withdraw per WP:SNOW. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Chernogorov[edit]

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

Puff piece article. Fails WP:BIO. Single ref mentions his name. All the rest are links company details. scope_creep (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill business person. We are not a web host for resumes! Bearian (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In no way notable here. The article is a blatant advert and full of weasel words, such as distinguished expert in the IT field and manages key integration projects. His is not a notable subject. WP:BASIC, the basic criteria for all biographies needs multiple, secondary reliable sources about the person. These just do not exist here; there are no sources of any sort of reliability about him. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Harley Nalley[edit]

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

PROD (and speedy) removed several times by creator - bringing to AfD for discussion. In essence this is a procedural nomination, but a quick scan of Google turned up minimal information regarding this subject. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Tony Fox (arf!) 22:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I put the BLP PROD on the article and restored it because the source added was not a RS (biennial magazine that is also a creative agency.) Subject fails WP:GNG TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability from independent, reliable sources offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Cannot find reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Looks like someone made an article about themselves to me. lbmarshall (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AsiaNet[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Unable to find sources that are in-depth about the service. Not to be confused with "Asianetnews.tv" which comes up in search. The website statistics from Alexa show it ranking 3million+ which means it has very little traffic. Simply not-notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. CNMall41 (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Not a notable company -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unsourced corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's highly unlikely that a company that collates press releases would ever meet WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find anything to indicate notability or industry special presence. Now merged into List of press release agencies. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misleading brand name. Nothing significant about this one Light2021 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, WP:CORP, and WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Not notable, not a worthwhile article, and just a list of notable press companies. lbmarshall (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey testing vs gorilla testing[edit]

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

Load of nonsense. Standard testing technique given a fashionable name by software group and then promoted as notable. Fails WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Good grief. No. Entirely made-up, and whatever it got right is already covered by Fuzzing Mduvekot (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced neologism article with significant WP:OR content. Monkey testing has a referenced article, and RS coverage. 'Gorilla testing' has a few mentions in books (1 2 3) and numerous hits for low quality blogs, Q/A sites, and forums. Overall, it looks like Gorilla Testing is borderline in coverage for having its own article, but there is definitely not enough RS coverage comparing the two systems for a comparison article.Dialectric (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not used be enough reliable sources as per above. W Nowicki (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Govier[edit]

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

Did a quick ISBN search, he's independently published. Does not meet any of the four branches of WP:AUTHOR South Nashua (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This is not a stub; it's a tweet. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soroosh Abdi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Looked at it about 8 times. Half the sources don't mention him. Can't see how he passes WP:BIO. Not notable. scope_creep (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sports agents are not often going to be notable for our purposes except for the "star" agents. Based on what I see in the article as well as reliable sources in Gnews, we don't see to have enough significant coverage, where he's the focus of the piece. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of passing WP:GNG Spiderone 22:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails my standards for lawyers -- admitted in 2014 and only practiced two years before quitting and did not meet any of my factors -- and that of the consensus. Sports agents are run of the mill except for those who are "stars". Bearian (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, no real discussion of him in the sources provided. Fenix down (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Cannot find reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Xanth characters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorceress Irene[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Xanth characters, after restructuring that page. You're right that the character is not notable enough for a standalone page, but it would work as part of a character list. I can do the merge. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cerebellum- with thanks for offering to do the legwork. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cadence Goes To The Library[edit]

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

Book published last year; the only thing it's notable for is that it's written by a 6-year-old. No third-party references, very few Google hits. (The external links are: the Facebook page of the author, and a magazine which does mention the book in a 2-sentence "review"/blog entry [1].) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: vanity press. Czolgolz (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No signs of notability. Beyond the Moon Magazine doesn't appear reliable at all. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's wonderful that someone so young has written and published a book (regardless of whether or not it's vanity or self-published), but ultimately there just isn't anything out there that would establish notability per WP:NBOOK. I wish her well, but right now this is just WP:TOOSOON for her work to have an entry. Since it's likely that the young lady or someone in her family is reading this, I'd like to ask that they not take this poorly - it's very, very difficult for most books to gain an entry on Wikipedia and we have books put out by very, very well known people that don't pass NBOOK. Shucks, I've even seen books land on national bestseller lists that have failed NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 6 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P. Shane Mitchell[edit]

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

NN performer/director/playwright. Active primarily in Alaska with minor local coverage through play reviews in the local paper. Ref #1 (Anchorage Press) review mentions he is the director. Ref #2 is a dead link. Ref #3 doesn't mention him. Ref #4 (Anchorage Daily News) about two short plays entered in a competition. One is by the subject. About five sentences are about Mitchell. The Wikipedia article mentions some obscure awards that are included in the Pioneer Drama Service external link. There is this Prince William Sound College conference which list him as receiving an award in 2010. I found nothing additional in searches that was helpful. Mostly different people with the same name. Not enough coverage for WP:N. Doesn't satisfy WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. Gab4gab (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I know, you know but I got to say I have a very strong feeling this guy is notable, if it has nothing to do with theater. For what it's worth, I'll put a "I'm on it, I'll get to it" on making necessary improvements on this article per WP:WHOAUPNELLY.
"There are various reasons why one cannot immediately edit one or more pages as they should be in order to enable it to meet certain standards, or even to prevent it from being deleted. If an editor states his/her intentions to make some improvement, but that more time is needed for any reason, this should very much be respected."
If you need a reason, for starters I think this has all the makings of one of the finest articles on Wikipedia. And watch out for that guy with the NAAK injector. He's not the only one doing it, either. Better get yourself some kevlar shorts! Keep your back to a wall. - 55378008a (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC) User has been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits[2]--Calton | Talk 06:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. If an editor states his/her intentions to make some improvement, but that more time is needed for any reason, this should very much be respected I tagged this article eight years ago for notability concerns, and it hasn't really improved. That's because he's not notable, even going by the very thin sources used to inflate his resume, so another eight years isn't going to help. --Calton | Talk 05:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I don't see how he's notable, but please fill it in. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot find reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything online to pass WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus that overlap between a category and a list is insufficient reason to delete the list. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of proposed geoengineering schemes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page is a list that is largely redundant with both Category:Geoengineering and List_of_geoengineering_topics. It adds little or no further information. By presenting this information as a list, it implies that these various proposals are roughly equivalent. In fact, the proposals vary so widely in their means, possible results, and current understanding of costs, feasibility, and risks that such a presentation is arguably misleading. Along these lines, it is notable that almost nothing has been added in the four years since the page was previously proposed for deletion, although the evidence and discussion of various geoengineering proposals has moved forward and further differentiated the proposed means. The list also obscures the fact that many of these proposals may or may not be geoengineering depending on one's definition thereof. Such context is provided by the primary pages such as Climate_engineering , Solar_radiation_management , and Carbon_dioxide_removal. Jesse L Reynolds (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Relisting. Jesse L Reynolds (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion of my own on the nomination itself at this time. @Jesse L Reynolds: for future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 20:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is normal (more or less inevitable) for a list to overlap with a category, but as the list is cited and the category isn't, the list certainly has added value (even ignoring the fact that few readers browse categories). On the supposed overlap with List of geoengineering topics, that list is uncited, and names only 16 types of scheme. Given the clear notability of the topic and the fact that the list is properly cited, I should have thought it an obvious keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Climate_engineering#Proposed_strategies links to here, too much information to fit in that article. And the rules are that you never delete a list just because you prefer categories, they can both exist. Dream Focus 20:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough difference between the subject matter of the two lists to justify keeping both. Overlap between cat and list fine per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Lists_and_categories. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:03, 7 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 Spinnin' Records. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maxximize Records[edit]

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

Vanity label run by Blasterjaxx, no indication of notability under the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Redirect to Spinnin' Records. Karst (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google. Redirect - changing my vote because all the sources I found were just passing mentions. - TheMagnificentist 06:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - That's right. It's a notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google. 141.138.146.132 (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm staying out of this a little bit since I got involved with the creator's unblock request, but I just want to point out that the above users provide no proof of notability. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 02:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into Spinnin' Records. No authoritative references are provided and nothing shows notability on its own.--Rpclod (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this label has brought no releases charting nationally or even in dance charts. I think the article is not notable. Stillnix (talk) 08:54, 9 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 The Apprentice 2. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice 2 candidates[edit]

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

Potential BLP issue as this is largely unsourced, and mostly trivia, I see no need to merge with The Apprentice (U.S. Season 2). - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability present in regards to a popular entertainment television show. --JohnnyCashMoney (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closer: This account was created today, and it's only edits are to AfDs. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is NOT inhereted. Ajf773 (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to main season page. Plausible search term, but no reason to have its own page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: Just a reminders that this isn't RfD, also note that The Apprentice 2 is a dab page, and I don't think it is useful given the ambiguity. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of both of those facts. This would be a plausible search term for anyone looking for candidates on any of those shows. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTINHERETED and possible copyvio. Ajf773 (talk) 23:51, 10 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 revised result was Keep. No sources of sufficient independence have yet been added to demonstrate that this person meets the WP:GNG guidelines. However the original nominator has been blocked and may have had ulterior reasons for the nomination. Theirs was the only Delete opinion so I'm restoring this article and it can take it's chances....Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG; nothing else here that seems to show him as notable. Being involved in someone else's book appears nothing more than WP:COAT; similar issues in how the R&D100 (a non-notable award) is described. I looked for better sources and cannot find any. If this article stays, someone should remove the WP:PEACOCK stuff, eg. "which still to this day is considered the finest product of its type in the world"; in reference to his brand of beach blankets. YesMovementEtTU (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's subject has had a critical (and WP:GNG notable) role in developing many household brands including: HSN Direct, National Lampoon, Ab Isolator and EZ Krunch (As Seen on TV), etc.. Subject and businesses also known in relevant industries. Subject consulted Kevin Trudeau to publish content over creating products leading to "Natural Cures 'They' Don't Want You to Know About" and an FTC/1st Amendment Rights controversy, which does not fit WP:COAT. R&D100 Award is a recognized 50+ year old accolade from R&D Magazine with many available references complying to WP:GNG; government institutions recognize and promote won awards^[1]. Agree with WP:PEACOCK, but more suitable for editing than deletion (which has been updated as of 7 January 2017).Designaco (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC) — Designaco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ "U.S. Department of Energy Projects Win 32 R&D 100 Awards for 2016". Energy.Gov. Retrieved 7 January 2017.

Comment: Most of the sources added do not represent an understanding of WP:RS, and much of the puffery remains. I still see no reason this is not mere spam. No significant in-depth sources exist despite the cite kill effort. YesMovementEtTU (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Could you provide specific citation and puffery examples? Added references include links to actual patents and license agreements, appropriately dated WSJ and NYT articles, a detailed IMDB profile, direct links to awarding websites, and appropriately dated articles featuring quotes from the subject. Because there was no initial request for needed citations second tier sources to press releases were also included to accommodate the claims made in the creation of this nomination. Additionally, explicit puffy content was removed and assumptions of success were limited to referenced articles (ex: a Multi-Week NYT Best Seller would be considered successful to the masses, but there are books with hundreds of weeks on the list). Designaco (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:RS in order to see why many of the items you just cited are invalid. YesMovementEtTU (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could you also expand on your belief that the article is not notable and primarily spam, so much so that it requires deletion? For example, do you have specialized knowledge in the related industries to bolster your claims of lack of notability or specific excerpts from the article that you believe serve only as spam and not qualify as a qualifying feature of a notable individual in their relevant industry? Designaco (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the reasons for nomination have been addressed and the article amended, specifically concerning notability, I'd like to request that the article be marked as a speedy keep. Additional claims made have no referenced elements and do not qualify for article deletion; instead they can be discussed and modified on the live article and prevent having this discussion go stale. However, if you would like to include additional comments, I'd be happy to provide feedback or further edits. Designaco (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions were removed for containing copyright violations. No changes have been made that still remain since the nomination. And though you continue to assert that non-RS sources should make someone notable, unfortunately that just isn't true. I think you may benefit from spending some time learning about Wikipedia's rules as it appears your additions break with many of them. YesMovementEtTU (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many changes have in fact remained, particularly the citations. Content that was removed or need better sources can continue to be discussed on the page as Wikipedia articles are living, breathing documents. As a new user, I'm sure there's a culture and set of rules I'm not fully proficient in. Fortunately, Wikipedia is also a community built resource with the primary goal to provide accurate and relevant information to those who search for it. I have no intentions of being a wiki-hobbiest, but as a web developer, I work for a number of clients that depend on their profiles and don't have the skill set or time to learn the intricacies of Wikipedia.

While I've only had a few days to learn the Wikipedia policies, I am confident that the article does not qualify for deletion. Feel free to mark as keep after the typical 7 days has gone by, otherwise I can proceed to take the additional steps to have an admin mark as keep or review the closing of the article. Designaco (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note. YesMovementEtTU and Designaco, you have both commented enough on this page. I have reverted your latest comments, which have become distracting to a normal discussion of whether the article meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Let other members of the community have their say. I can think of no reason for either of you to post here again.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus in favour of deletion or merging, there appear to be some arguments in favour of this not being a mere ONEEVENT. Perhaps though a dedicated merge/redirect/rename discussion could take care of the BIO1E issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faraaz Ayaaz Hossain[edit]

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

He died in a terrorist attack, what we have is WP:ONEEVENT. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to July 2016 Dhaka attack, his grandfather is slightly notable. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is not a WP:ONEEVENT. The article has been updated and you might find that the person is significant enough to have separate article. In 2016 he was awarded the Mother Teresa Memorial International Award for Social Justice and for the first time this award has been given posthumously. From the year of 2016 PepsiCo INC has launched the annual “Faraaz Hossain Courage Award”. This award has been announced for Faraaz's heroic role on that Dhaka attack. This award will be given for next 20 years and the prize money for each year is 10,000USD. I stronly believe that the request of Vinegarymass911 is not valid. --Nasir Khan Saikat (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources do indicate notability. One event may have resulted in the major claim for notability, but it's immaterial as his notability overrides it.Jupitus Smart 09:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing in article supports notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue WP:ONEEVENT is not an argument for deletion, for example, it states, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." That's not a deletion. See WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as WP:1E in fact applies since the article itself says "known for the event" thus there'#s nothing else including the fact the information and sources themselves are about it, thus his death and news about it were the only claims. Wikipedia Is Not A Newspaper is part of policy and a news story is exactly what this is. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L. E. Leone[edit]

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

Lacks evidence of notability. Wrote a food column for an alternative weekly and member of a small defunct alternative band. Owen (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Food columnist for free paper doesn't exactly scream "notable", and Google doesn't turn up anything to contradict that assumption. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Cannot find reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clear consensus to keep. Tone 09:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina P. Ramet[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:ACADEMIC. Nothing stated but a professor with a list of publications. Owen (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and decisive KEEP: absurd AFD, see selected Ramet bibliography below:
Nationalism and Federalism in Yugoslavia, 1963-1983 (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1984)
Nationalism and Federalism in Yugoslavia, 1962-1991, 2nd ed. (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1992)
Cross and Commissar: The Politics of Religion in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1987)
The Soviet-Syrian Relationship since 1955: A Troubled Alliance (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1990)
Social Currents in Eastern Europe: The Sources and Meaning of the Great Transformation (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1991); 2nd ed. 1995
Balkan Babel: Politics, Culture, and Religion in Yugoslavia (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1992)
Balkan Babel: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia from the Death of Tito to Ethnic War, 2nd ed. (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1996)
Balkan Babel: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia from the Death of Tito to the War for Kosovo, 3rd ed. (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1999)
Balkan Babel: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia from the Death of Tito to the Fall of Milosevic (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2002)
Whose Democracy? Nationalism, Religion, and the Doctrine of Collective Rights in Post-1989 Eastern Europe (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997) — named an Outstanding Academic Book for 1997 by Choice magazine
Nihil Obstat: Religion, Politics, and Social Change in East-Central Europe and Russia (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1998)
Thinking about Yugoslavia: Scholarly Debates about the Yugoslav Breakup and the Wars in Bosnia and Kosovo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)
The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918—2005 (Bloomington, Ind. & Washington D.C.: Indiana University Press & The Wilson Center Press, 2006)
The Liberal Project & the Transformation of Democracy: The Case of East Central Europe (College Station, Tex.: Texas A&M University Press, 2007)
Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia at Peace and at War: Selected Writings, 1983—2007 (Berlin & Münster: Lit Verlag, 2008)
Quis separabit? 17:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:Academic: "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are." Owen (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. It is the number of citations to the subject's works, as seen by the Google Scholar search linked above, that makes notability obvious. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:PROF criterion 1. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If true, there needs to be citations in the article showing this. Owen (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"She is a Professor of Political Science at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim." (per article), but let's say she clearly passes the WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR criteria. Again, this is an absurd AFD. Quis separabit? 20:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you observe WP:CIVIL. Calling this nomination "absurd" again and again does not show how Ramet meets the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. Being a professor is not the litmus test established there. Which of the nine listed criteria are met? I don't see how any of them are shown within the context of the article as it currently stands. Owen (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the editor signing "Quis separabit?" could have worded things a bit better, but would also point out that notability is an attribute of the subject of the article, not of the article as it currently stands. I'm rather shocked that such a long-standing administrator doesn't understand that fundamental point about the way that Wikipedia works, and, if I could be bothered, would make a proposal that admins should have to go through reconfirmation after a number of years. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who signs as "Quis separabit?" (and whose user name is "Rms125a@hotmail.com") is not an administrator, and I don't know how you got the impression that he or she is one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC) I now see that this comment was based on a misreading. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nine publications listed by Google scholar as having more than 100 citations is a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and membership in two prestigious Norwegian learned societies is a double pass of #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Bizarre and timewasting AfD nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. In addition to the citation record and the national academy memberships, her works have been widely reviewed in reliable sources (WP:AUTHOR). I will add some of that to her article. As an example, in a 2006 book review in The American Historical Review, the reviewer called her "undoubtedly the most prolific scholar of the former Yugoslavia writing in English" (though the review was otherwise pretty harsh). EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationales of users David Eppstein and EricEnfermero above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what a waste of time. Thanks to EricEnfermero and others for confirming that this is obvious. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Winter (meteorologist)[edit]

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

Fails ANYBIO. NOTNEWS and NOTMEMORIAL also apply. John from Idegon (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 17:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are certainly sources, but all or nearly all of the coverage seems to revolve around his death. Seems unlikely anyone would at all know who he is were it not for that, and being a local weatherman who unexpectedly commits suicide doesn't constitute notability. TimothyJosephWood 17:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and above rationale. Cannot find reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW joe decker ^talk 06:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of metro systems by fares[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it fails WP:NOTDIR #5 because there is no reason to supply pricing information and there is no encyclopedic significance to the pricing information. The article also fails WP:NOTDIR #7 because it is a listing of metro systems with little context. The article is also WP:LISTCRUFT definitions #6, #8, and #12. The article fails WP:LISTNAME by being a too broad topic. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also, it would be impracticable to keep this list up to date, and most of the entries are empty, so it is not at all a helpful article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not even sure this is meaningful, given systems like the DC metro where the fare depends on the trip. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously unmeaningful. There are some metro systems that only cover a few kilometres, but others, such as London's, that cover a very large area. Also exchange rates fluctuate from day to day and much more so from year to year. 86.17.222.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and as per my comments on the talk page. Domdeparis (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nördic Nightfury 10:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. oknazevad (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Citobun (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIR Spiderone 21:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nominators reasoning and all other commentors. Ajf773 (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Mungoshi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The only notable fact is his being, once, in the Guinness Book of World Records. The article probably does not qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 or WP:CSD#G11, although one could make a case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This autobiographical version is much more promotional than the previously-deleted version, but better referenced . However, few of the refs are to reliable sources. The BBC article is all about Jonah, as is the SMH article (via AFP) and he gets a passing mention in The Herald article about his family.
Possible WP:BIO1E issues, but getting close to GNG. If kept, it needs massive pruning of all the self-promotion. However, the Herald article notes that the Mungoshi family is a fairly notable dynasty. Is there perhaps scope for merging this into a Mungoshi family article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
See also CFD of a slew of categories created for this article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an WP:AUTOBIO which doesn't really make any claim of notability strong enough to justify overlooking the conflict of interest issue. And furthermore, the subject also self-created a whole bunch of non-defining "keyword" categories ("African team building facilitators"? "Zimbabwean success coaches"?) that exist only to contain him because there's no extended category tree to parent them — which makes it even more clear that the intent here was advertorial rather than encyclopedic. There might in fact be more legitimate grounds for an article, per BrownHairedGirl above, but WP:TNT pertains — even if a proper article can be written neutrally and independently by somebody other than the subject himself, we're still better off starting from scratch than we are trying to fix this as written. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bearcat persuades to me to get off the fence. Not worth trying to fix this self-promotion of an at-best marginally-notable topic. It's WP:TNT time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Kashif Almas[edit]

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

Fails to assert WP:Politician. Minor official. scope_creep (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too minor an office to pass the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability from independent, reliable sources offered or to be found. A bit of social media and trivial mentions only. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:31, 12 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. Either creating a new article on Legacy Fighting Alliance and merging both into there, or nominating both articles for deletion are viable options. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection Fighting Alliance[edit]

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

Non-notable "feeder league" for more notable MMA organizations. Sourced to gossip/fan sites and regurgitated press releases; much content violates WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Orange Mike | Talk 05:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability, poorly sourced. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Legacy Fighting Championship as the two companies are set to merge. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Legacy Fighting Championship and Resurrection Fighting Alliance are reportedly merging to become Legacy Fighting Alliance. It's not clear to me that either of these organizations have the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Coverage appears to be dominated by routine sports reporting. A possibility is to combine RFA and LFC into a new article with redirects from both names. Of course, another possibility is to delete both articles. At this point, I don't really have a strong preference and also prefer not to get involved in this type of MMA discussion. Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 9 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. The article is reasonably well-sourced, so the main issue here is WP:SYNTH. I don't really see either argument being clearly stronger than the other, so it looks like an issue where people will just have to agree to disagree. I do note, however, that the people voting to delete, merge, or redirect are significantly more numerous than the people voting to keep, so a proposed merge into Culture of Canada or Canadian identity would not be out of order. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian values[edit]

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

Delete. WP:ESSAY which synthesizes a bunch of discrete issues -- publicly-funded institutions, same-sex marriage, gun control, the hijab, etc. -- to advance an original research definition of a phrase that happens to be newsy right now. But for one thing, a big part of the reason it's newsy right now is because nobody knows exactly what Kellie Leitch means by it -- and for another, the whole values argument actually kind of undermines itself because respect for difference, IOW respect for people's right to hold different values as long as they're not harming others in the process, can also be identified as a "Canadian value" (e.g. while SSM is certainly the law of the land in Canada, there are still people in this country who identify themselves more strongly with "traditional" religious values that oppose SSM -- but as long as they're not actively discriminating against LGBT people or firebombing LGBT-owned businesses, they're allowed to hold whatever personal beliefs they like.) For another, the barbaric cultural practices slash niqab alarmism of the 2015 election actually backfired, resulting in the election of a government that pledged to increase the number of Syrian refugees being accepted for settlement in Canada -- and the Quebec Charter of Values, similarly, was killed by the PQ government's defeat in the most recent Quebec provincial election (and anyway, that bill tried to legislate Quebec values, not pan-Canadian ones). I'll grant that it's a "controversial issue", but a central part of the controversy is the fundamental problem of even defining what the term means in the first place -- which means that a neutral encyclopedia that relies on outside sources and prohibits original research cannot presume to define it. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many of the items listed lack a source identifying them as a "Canadian Value," and there is a major dearth of sources that actually define and discuss what "Canadian values" are with any kind of authority or certainty. I believe this should be redirected to Culture of Canada, in the same way that American values directs to Culture of the United States. Even if it can be reliably sourced, there's no agreement among sources (or in general) about what Canadian values are or aren't. Left alone, the article is will just become a battleground-y quagmire of poorly sourced SYNTH/OR. Until a large number of very reliable sources agree that "Canadian values" are a thing, and agree on what exactly they are (which will very likely never happen), we shouldn't have an article on this. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and agree with User:Fyddlestix. Serious POV quagmire! Even the very selection and/or omission of certain sources and references is highly POV. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Culture of Canada as ((R with possibilities)). There is potential for an encyclopedic article on this, but what that would be (i.e. sourcing to reliable sources specifically discussing Canadian values) is so far away from what this article is (i.e. this what some majority of Canadians believe, so it's a Canadian value, minority viewpoints aren't Canadian values) that WP:TNT applies. This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS to lump these various views into an article on "Canadian values". ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely WP:OR, bits and pieces of this can be placed into articles about Canadian culture, certainly. South Nashua (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I agree with Patar that there is some potential for encyclopedic coverage here, it would be exceedingly difficult. "Values" are poorly defined, subjective, and, to an extent, aspirational (e.g. who we want to be, or ideally be, rather than who we are). Culture, on the other hand, is more straightforward to cover, as it looks at extant things (popular music, cuisine, lit, etc.) that reflect our aspirations. Anything saveable here would be better in the culture article. The Interior (Talk) 20:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Culture of Canada, or delete and WP:SALT. If deleted, I'm concerned that the subject article could be re-created. I agree with Bearcat's analysis of the problem with the WP:SYNTH issues with the topic, and that it would become a magnet for editors who want to use it for Wikipedia:SOAPBOX purposes/editing. PK T(alk) 20:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the last couple days the article has been heavily revised to remove most of the dubious material and add lots of fresh RS. Critics might take a fresh look Rjensen (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like the stuff you added, but I think it would be equally (and perhaps more) at home in Canadian identity or a similar article. The rest of the article still seems very disjointed and I am still seeing a lot of SYNTH/SOAPBOX issues. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Port over useful content to culture or identity. Might be something worth exploring to merge those two articles as well, however would require closer analysis. trackratte (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Culture of Canada, or delete and WP:SALT (per PK). I used WP:WPCleaner to copy edit it a little but realised it was probably a waste of time... The name did seem dubious. (Which iz how I'm here.) I checked British values (which is a far more widely-used term) and even that redirects to the Britishness article—an article about a well-established and much-discussed quality. We could save anything worthwhile and move it to more appropriate articles but most seems WP:SYNTH and generally OR — Iadmc ♫^talk 21:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has been sufficiently written about at least since Martin Seymour Lipset's comparison of Canadian and U.S. values. Canadian experts such as Gad Horowitz and George Grant have also written about it. It has been used to explain such things as why Canada retains a monarchy, has developed major socialist parties, encourages multiculturalism, accepts refugees, participates in peacekeeping, and has publicly supported religious schools. Of course one can argue what they are, whether the country has any shared values, or whether these values are good or bad. Although values are part of the culture (See Culture of Canada), that topic includes the arts, sports, cuisine, and folklore. Justin Trudeau's recent remarks have brought the issue into public debate: "There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada. There are shared values — openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice." TFD (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has indeed been substantially improved, and content disputes are not dealt with by deleting the article anyway. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Culture of Canada or into Canadian identity; i.e. add a section about Values in one of those articles. IMHO. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term "Canadian values" is used by Canadian journalists, academics and politicians. Deletion of the article will merely deny Wikipedia readers information regarding how the term is being used. It is preferable to have readers learn how the term is being used and make up their own mind regarding whether Canadian values exist and what those values are. "Canadian values" are a different concept than Culture of Canada, which deals with arts, sports, cuisine. WSDavitt (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this is an article that I could ever read, no matter how well sourced, and feel that it is based on anything solid. "Canadian values" are obviously not shared by all Canadians, so what is the threshold for it to be included here? 50% or more of Canadians have this value? What about the millions of Canadians who don't share these values? I agree with previous comments about it being WP:SYNTH and possibly WP:OR. This seems better suited as an essay or an opinion piece, not a Wikipedia article. Air.light (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are "Canadian values" a topic of interest for an encyclopedia. It is of interest to many scholars in several countries, and to most of the major parties & prime ministers of Canada--they indeed write and give major speeches and shape foreign & domestic policies as if Canadian values are important to Canada. Rjensen (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this was ever a test case for WP:HEY, this is it. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OR. There is no definition for this term and this article is a summary of opinions without clear sourcing. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the claims of synthesis, I see reliable sources which treat the subject as a single topic. WP:GNG is met, that an article is difficult to write well is not a criteria for deletion under WP:DEL#REASON. Moreover, WP:HEY is met. --joe decker ^talk 17:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corn disc[edit]

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

No hits for this sport could be found online;; none of the article's references mention the sport. This is a possible G3 and/or A11 but it doesn't seem blatant enough to qualify so I'm assuming good faith here and taking this to AFD instead. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence that this is not the hoax it appears to be. Meters (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search does not find any sport called "corn disc". This is either a hoax or a game that the author invented. Gulumeemee (talk) 10:08, 6 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tunc[edit]

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

No sources provided, nor do there seem to be any on the Internet. Quite possibly a hoax. Oneforfortytwo (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I'm almost positive the term isn't a hoax, I am unable to find any kind of RS to confirm. This is the only source I could find, which I wouldn't deem reliable by any means. Meatsgains (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've found a few more uses of this online - here, here, here, here and here - most of which relate to the design of an Old Fashioned glass. None of these is especially reliable, but at least one or two are from glassware retailers. It's possible that this has been on Wikipedia so long that, like certain other words in the English language, it is now actually becoming used in the way described. --Rob linham (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not in the Oxford or Merriam-Webster dictionaries, nor do I find much out there in the interwebs. A dab page could be cobbled together afterward: Irène Tunc; one of the two novels comprising The Revolt of Aphrodite; Tunc Blumenthal, a character in Marooned in Realtime; Tunç; a mistaken surname of the Blessed Gerard. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 5 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. (soft) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rqlite[edit]

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

Unremarkable software which has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. A search online resulted mostly in unreliable forum posts or blog posts by the software's developer. Note that the article's creator, based on his username, appears to be the software's developer, so this is also a possible COI article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, coverage is non-notable, and there may be a COI issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lees[edit]

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

I'm aware of Matt Lees but I honestly don't think there is enough information of him to notable enough to get a page on his own. Especially with the article being full of original research. GamerPro64 03:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the video game reliable sources custom Google search, he appears best known for a video related to a copyright infringement claim, but has no articles written about his work, etc. As such, the topic lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 07:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This journalist released a two videos that went 'viral' at the time of the PS4 and XboxOne releases - this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rJDn0jRnUQ and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOxdMQhDMIU - third party mentions might form the basis of notability, but otherwise can't see much likelyhood that notability criteria will be reached. Suggest delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.174.82 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Schiff[edit]

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

Only one notable role, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one significant role is not enough to meet our notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no sources & A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page offers no value to Wikipedia users. It is only beneficial for Mark Schiff so that he can feel famous. Should be deleted without question. Jakegrossman1 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm Shower[edit]

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

Unsourced article on an unnotable album. Subject has only one entry I could find, a review on Allmusic, but nothing else. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Allmusic review, coverage in David Katz's book People Funny Boy, and The Wire. Despite it's original limited release, it's a significant album in Lee Perry's career. --Michig (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomi Tang[edit]

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

In world advertising article. No context outwith the company, the sex toys intrude. Ref's are all to sites about trade papers and reviews. Clearly asserts WP:NOT scope_creep (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just read the first line Nomi Tang, an Asian-German entrepreneur, has set out to develop a range of stylish high-quality sex toys, such as silicone vibrators, love balls and prostate massager to meet the demand of design-savvy and pleasure seeking consumers. That's enough. Literally no good sources are available. The article was created by Nomi-loewie who seems to have a COI. As this is a WP:PROMO case, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:50, 12 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 nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alieu Darbo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable footballer A real youth player but hoax career. despite repeated news from Africa and Nordic claimed he made his debut in France in a cup match, the opponent don't even exist. (No French source support it either) Seem the player is real but his agent (or himself ) try to rescue his career by keep giving hoax to news outlet to support his non-existed move to Wigan, to Spain, so that Crotone and the Croatian side really offered him contract (supported by fccrotone.it and UEFA.com) in that nature, I doubt that although Soccerway and footballdatabase claimed that he played for Finnish side Inter Turku in January 2014 in a cup match, no real match report (nor any .fi website) support that. Lastly, Maltese League is not a fully professional league. Even this deletion is failed, please consider lock this page to higher protection as I doubt there is only one sockmaster editing (two IP from Nigeria and Senegal, and two users. )Matthew_hk t c 16:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 16:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously this article could use some cleanup, but according to FIFA he's played for the Gambia, meaning the article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Youth cap did not count. Unused bench at senior level neither as notable. Matthew_hk t c 16:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep | This article proves he played professionally in egypt as well as mentioning him playing in croatia, maybe this is the fault of the stats keepers? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the problem of this player were repeated news articles from Africa and Nodric that claims he made his debut in XYZ place, for example in France but no French source to support it, in Croatia but no Croatian source to support it, in Finland but no Finnish source support it (I find the TPS match report from official site but they only kept the lineup of themselves but not Inter) For Egypt, please find an Arabic source to support not a Gambia source due to repeated hoax on the same player.

Moreover, the Gambian sources quoted transfermarkt to referencing his Egypt club stats. which Wikipedia long considered as a less notable / reliable source as it was community based. Freely to dig out actual match report. Matthew_hk t c 17:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Its in English but its an egyptian site with pictures and stuff, well known site so it would have to be a pretty major hoax for this to be fake AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure signing for professional club qualify for WP:GNG (at least UEFA.com confirm his Croatia signing), but without any real match report of professional league, the player fails WP:NSPORT Matthew_hk t c 17:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrew found the Finnish match report in FC Inter site http://fcinter.fi/uutiset/2014/01/31/inter-jalleen-tpsaa-vahvempi since TPS and Inter were professional club , the League Cup match may qualify for WP:NSPORT . Still the article was repeatly attack by hoax statistics and Wigan seem a hoax http://www.wigan.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=287840 Matthew_hk t c 18:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharsheret (organization)[edit]

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

The organization appears to be pretty small with nothing pointing toward its notability. Galatz ^Talk 20:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 20:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 20:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 20:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Gnews search for the organization name (without the disambiguation) yields sufficiently good coverage in a diverse range of publications across the U.S. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs expanding but it is notable and has good coverage. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources available via a Google search go well beyond the minimum standard of notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CM Lodestar electric chain hoist[edit]

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

No indication that this single product is notable, over other chain hoists. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTTHEPLACETOPUBLISHSPECSHEETS (plus no claim of notability). Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Cannot find reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG as to why this specific version would be notable. GauchoDude (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black River Beach Neighborhood Center[edit]

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

Other than the expected local coverage, and even that is very sparse, and consists mostly of trivial mentions, nothing on the search engines shows this passes WP:GNG. Was deprodded without rationale by the article's creator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this place it will be very important. --Wikideas1 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just a local facility, fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, not notable. MB 01:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Cannot find reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Now passes subject specific guideline. Fenix down (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Thank[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD rejected with no reason given. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never appeared in a fully professional league and does not have enough substantial coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this player's full name is Marcos Vinícius Costa Guedes according to [4]. He came in as a substitute in the 83rd minute for Chennai City F.C. vs Minerva Punjab FC in an I-League match today according to [5], thus meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in light of his appearance for Chennai City, he now passes WP:NFOOTBALL, having made an appearance in a fully professional league. His Soccerway profile also supports this. Kosack (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems he meets WP:NFOOTBALL after all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTY Coderzombie (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - essentially, the article was nominated for deletion because the player wasn't notable, but now that he has participated in a fully-pro league game, article should stay. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Ignacio Angeli[edit]

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

No indication that this subject meets the basic requirements for Notability. Two years as a third-string goalkeeper, and inclusion on a directory listing of doctors, does not satisfy GNG. A Google search showed only routine directory listings, and a News search found nothing. Gronk Oz (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparently he received no playing time while on the professional team, thus failing WP:FOOTY. Searches did not turn up enough (practically zero) coverage either with or without his middle name. He did publish an article on "Biomaterials in Otologic Surgery" in 2015, but doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with failure of WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. My own searches turned up next to nothing. Further, the author of the article posted to my talk page indicating that though he was affiliated with Juventus F.C., he never actually saw playing time. NFOOTY requires actually playing. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, WP:FOOTY, and WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:23, 12 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 and add a line to the article at MBB Bo 105 if a source can be found. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

PADC Hummingbird[edit]

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

No sources in article, and not likely to be notable on its own. If it's truly a development of the MBB Bo 105, then that article is probably the best place for a reliably sourced mention. BilCat (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything sourceable. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it clearly flew but as it was an illegal copy of the Bo 105 it just needs a line at MBB Bo 105#Variants rather than a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with MilborneOne just add a line to MBB Bo 105 Sario528 (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)DISCUSSION[reply]

← Body of the discussion stays unchanged

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 Skill but with the proviso that if a more fully formed and referenced article on the subject can be drafted, it can be revived at this location. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skill set[edit]

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

Maybe this could become something eventually, but I worry that the topic is too broad to ever be fully fleshed out. It might be better to specify on specific skill sets for different types of situations and leave the overarching definition for Wiktionary, but I'm on the fence. South Nashua (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator says that they are on the fence so I'm not seeing a case to answer. The topic is analysed in detail in sources such as this and so it passes WP:SIGCOV. The matter is then one of ordinary editing not deletion and AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any dictionary definition can be proven to have significant coverage using a Google Books search. This article is just a DICDEF, and more than adequately covered by Wiktionary's article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to redirect to skill, probably like backgammon set should redirect to backgammon. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely just a dicdef. Emeraude (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skill. It's a reasonable search term, but there's just no meaningful conceptual difference between Skill and Skill set. TimothyJosephWood 15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Timothy. It is a reasonable search term, but not worthy of its own article. Lepricavark (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skill per above; a quite reasonable suggestion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A highly noteable concept. Skill sets are clearly distinct from skills, and have their own meta properties. Similar to swarms which have properties you don't find in any of the individuals that compose them. I understand the noms concern about this being a broad topic, but looking at the article for Swarms I see we have just one, not a collection of different articles for bee swarms, fish swarms etc. It's probably more efficient to have just one article for skillsets, which can later be developed to have sub sections for the skillsets needed in different fields of work. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As a HR concept it is of the highest importance. From a general point of view, youngsters are always being advised to expand their skill set, by employment consultant with out either of them knowing what a skill set is. May be this was not a concept that was familiar to those of us who grew up in a fairer world but if you are an unemployed graduate in a post-truth society, WP is where you go to find out the nuances of what you have been asked to expand. There is one gifted admin on wiki who is waiting at tables because employer fail to understand the skill set he has developed at WP, and there is now only this article he can link to- it need rapidly to be worked up rather than deleted. Articles start as stubs and then are worked up. Now having expressed my opinion as I was asked to in a banner: quo vadis.
Make a lead and make an article
Look to a section
- Definition
- History
- Regional differencies
  - Skill set within Wikipedia
    - Skill set of a newbie
    - Skill set of a established editor
    - Skill set of wikipedia specialists
      - Administrators
      - Project coordinators
      - Copy editors
      - Paid wikimedia employees
      - Arbcom
- Skill sets within sectors
  - Manual labourer
  - Artisans
  - Graduates
  - Postgraduates
  - Postdoctorals
  - Diplomats
  - Civil servants
  - Politicians
- Conflicts arising from differing skill sets
- Economic and political implications
  - Conflicts arising from differing skill sets

Now we need to categorise- Category:Human resource management seems a good place to start, and with in that there are three relevant subcategories. If I do get involved further these are directions I would intend to go. I will X-post the list to Article talk space.--ClemRutter (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, but Wikipedia isn't a HOW TO or LinkedIn suggestion box. As for the "Wikipedia specialists" section, delete, navel-gazing, and the "skill sets within sectors" section is nothing but patronising or original research or worse. Skill set of a graduate? Ability to serve a burger? Skill set of a civil servant? Ability to push paper? Skill set of a politician? Ability to lie? This isn't encyclopedic in any sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Smile: Skill set of a politician? Ability to lie?- all you need is a reference and you could add that to the article. So did try a little googling - I was overwhelmed by possibilities- the first dozen from notable sources. Can I add ((main|Machiavellianism)) to the subsection? ClemRutter (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This would not be a good fit for merging to the skill article as that is about the concept of skill, and the concepts of different types of skill, all considered individually. This article is about combinations of skills, how they differ in different people, how the sets desirable for different roles differ (and how the expected and actual desirable skill sets differ), and how matches and mismatches between the combinations of desirable and actual skill sets in various situations. As noted, these are fundamental to the field of human resources (and it's very likely there are academic studies on all of this and how such understanding relates to successful businesses, etc). Also a big trout to the nominator for this waste of time and effort - if you aren't sure whether something is suitable for Wikipedia the first step is learning more about the topic, the second step is discussing it on the talk page or with a relevant WikiProject. Articles for deletion only becomes the correct step when you are certain the article should be deleted (the clue is in the name). Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Bettencourt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just a regular stuntman. Fails WP:GNG. Susana Hodge (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As in the first nomination. Does not meet notability criteria either as martial artist or actor. Nothing to indicate any notability as a stuntman either.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a stuntman or stunt coordinator is insufficient to show notability. The article lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG and there are no independent sources to show WP:NSPORT or WP:MANOTE are met. My own search did not turn up anything to show any WP notability criteria are met. Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Cannot find reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3A Tutors Ltd[edit]

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

Can't find independent reliable sources about the company. The references in the article are about the two students and do not mention the company. John of Reading (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references are poor: presumably this firm is the "centre in Bristol" mentioned in the Basingstoke Gazette, but that and the other references fail verification. Nor are my searches finding better reliable sources about the firm itself: fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable either as an educational institution or as a business. Emeraude (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above --Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The references given in the article for the child prodigies are irrelevant as they do not mention 3A Tutors Ltd. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-significant for wiki standards Light2021 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT #1 (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Service System[edit]

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

Should be merged Ethanbas (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensively sourced article about a significant subject (even if a number of those sources are primary sources). More to the point, there is not much point proposing a merger without saying what it should be merged with. I am also a little concerned that the decision to propose deletion may have been influenced by apparent hostility towards the subject of the article (see this edit). --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the user who proposed deletion has made comments here and here, which suggest that the proposal was made in error. Can this be withdrawn now please? It would be good to get rid of the banner from the top of the article if there is no serious desire to delete the page, and it appears that when the banner was removed it was soon reinstated by "Cyberbot I" so presumably something else needs to be done in addition to just editing out the banner. Thanks. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy keep" please - from my reading of the "Speedy Keep" page, this would qualify. (Criterion 1.) --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thejas Kesari[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and possibly fails WP:NACTOR too: I tried a lot but failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support notability. His name was added to Magic Ajji today by the creator without providing a reliable source so if anyone can provide some reliable sources to support GNG and NACTOR I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just some Computer student creating a page for himself. Pure spam and fails WP:FILM criteria. Jupitus Smart 09:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and is purely promotional Spiderone 21:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dimsum (Over-the-top)[edit]

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

Non-notable VOD service. Would speedy A7 but don't think it complies with criteria. Nördic Nightfury 13:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 13:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 13:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 13:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 13:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is a new VOD service in malaysia. still relatively less on info but worth to keep note underground work
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Underground work (talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Underground work's comment says it all: "this is a new VOD service in malaysia. still relatively less on info". Simply put, the company lacks coverage in reliable sources, which isn't surprising given how young the company is. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5, could you sign your comment, please. Nördic Nightfury 07:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry about that, I forgot to sign that. I try to avoid not signing my comment but occassionally I mess up. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting - low participation in seven days Nördic Nightfury 07:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 07:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: corporate spam on an unremarkable service; no value to the project and WP:PROMO applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baluyut Family[edit]

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

Unreferenced family tree of non-notable persons, providing no context as to who these persons are. Each individual is probably both A1 and WP:A7 and also WP:BLPPROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy delete.Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced family tree with no indication why any or all of these individuals are relevant to an encyclopaedia and with associated WP:BLP issues. AllyD (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. We are not Ancestry.com. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, no evidence any are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Pelic[edit]

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

self written vanity page for non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that he meets WP:ENT (co-hosted a single TV show). WP:GNG is also not met. Of the three independent sources referenced in the article, two are tabloids and all three are interviews, so they are in effect WP:PRIMARY. I had no luck finding any non-interview treatment in secondary sources. Daß Wölf 17:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:57, 12 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. No prejudice against creation of NPOV article with reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OANDA[edit]

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

No evidence of third party notability from reliable sources; Globe and Mail story appears to be a press release or similar paid coverage. Prod was disputed with no comment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandelbrot's book seems to be a valid source. Enivid (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the material in the article indicates nothing more than IT EXISTS. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cut to a minimum This company is notable as many companies use its published rates as forex benchmarks and it is good to have a reference of who they are. However, this article suffers from serious POV and sourcing issues which have not been resolved for a long time. Suggest it be reduced to what can be proven from a Dun & Bradstreet or similar search, and it can be rebuilt if someone with knowledge and sources comes along.Oblivy (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they are notable in the Forex space, but agree with Oblivy that it should be cut down to remove all the promotional and POV material. Sargdub (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article is too promotional for a passing mention in a book to overcome; should be deleted. Marginal notability at best; one of many such firms going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as-is. Can be recreated in the future by someone else without COI if it is really notable – however I object to all the single-purpose accounts making these kinds of articles for promotional purposes, despite our policy on what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for advertising. Citobun (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Sharma (TV actress)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pooja Sharma (TV actress) (2nd nomination)

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

This article in not looking like a article in wikipedia it's looking like a article instead it's look like a praise letter. She had never done any successfull TV series as a protogonist. She has done only one popular serial that is Diya aur Baati hum but in this show her role as antagonist was only for few days. This atticle repeatedly violates WP:NPOV and does not meet even WP:BIO. So I think this article should be deleted. Ishi2345 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with the nominator about violating Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Notability (people) . I read the whole article and its seriously looking like a compliment letter to boss but when I try to find out about the actress's life I don't find any notable work in internet. The article try to portray her as a epic heroine like Helen in Troy. But in reality she didn't done any single notable work. So I think this article should be deleted. Ominictionary (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The actress is completely non-notable. She had done only one series as protogonist which was stoped because of law trp rating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vividha23 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a main contributor of this article I am trying to address the issues relating to WP:NPOV and WP:BIO raised by above editors. To make the article more 'neutral' and fit for Wikipedia it is rectified and improved. Further the editors are requested to edit if necessary. Regarding 'notability' of the article subject, I want to inform the editors that she had done - Ruk Jaana Nahin - run successfully for about 1 year (19 December 2011 - 23 November 2012) and Tu Mera Hero - run successfully for about 1 year (22 December 2014 - 14 November 2015). Her performances as 'main female protagonist' in Ruk Jaana Nahin and as 'main female antagonist' in Tu Mera Hero were liked very much by the people. She also acted for the difficult role of a weird character in Diya Aur Baati Hum successfully although the role is short and of some days. Over and above these she had done 'lead role' in 12 episodics (Short film like TV show of about 45-50 minutes) for different TV channels. She is very versatile actress and has been entertaining TV audience since 2010 till date. Many reliable and independent Indian Newspapers like 'The Times of India', 'The Hindu', 'Indian Express', 'Tribune India', 'Zee News', 'ABP Live', etc. and TV Magazines like 'Tellychakkar', etc. made coverage of the events relating to her. The editors are requested to refer to the inline citations and references given for the article. Based on the above clarifications, I would like to request the editors to reconsider their decision and withdraw the nomination of the article for deletion.--Teampoojasharma (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Her serial Ruk Jaana Nahin was never successfull the serial was stopped because of law trp for more information check this link :-http://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/ruk-jaana-nahin-go-air-khamoshiyaan-get-early-evening-slot. The serial never did well. Tu Mera Hero was also not a successfull serial at the first place it was doing good but after that it also failed to impress audiance. By the way we are not for to discuss which serial was hit or flop we are here discussing about the actress's notablity. Whatever Teampoojasharma (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC) gives as reference that all are gossip column nothing reliable source. Ishi2345 (talk)[reply]

@ Everything once started is to end but it matters how long it stays. TRP of the show mentioned in the above referred link is what happened after running about 1 year. 1 year is a long period. TRP of a show depends on many factors. Here we are discussing about the actor not the show. Basic Criteria of Notability (People) of Wikipedia says - 'People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.'. The coverage given on the actress by the reliable and independent sources as cited in the article itself (some of the sources are mentioned above in my previous comment) may be considered. I think reliable source means the Newspapers or Magazines, not the column and every content is a part of these sources. --Teampoojasharma (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- Probably non notable because I don't find any information about her in google if I search about her name always showing up some other actress called Pooja Sharma not any information about this one. In this view I can take her as non-notable so delete it.Tupur16 (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Even if we do not find a targeted person on internet in the first search giving name only, the person may be found when searching by adding more query items relevant to the person. (e.g. in this case Pooja Sharma with Ruk Jaana Nahin, Tu Mera Hero, etc.) The conclusion of only the person found on internet in the first search giving name only is notable, but the other persons of the same name are not notable may not be right. As mentioned in my previous comment, Wikipedia has its own Criteria of Notability (People). Wikipedia solves such conflict through Disambiguation Pages as different persons of same name may be notable to include in Wikipedia. --Teampoojasharma (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log page. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Ishi2345: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 00:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 01:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 01:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 01:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. unsuccessful actor, and that's about it. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see the first few sources of the article addressed, as they are major newspapers and definite reliable source coverage (though the trash blog refs near the end should be removed)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete:- completely unsuccessful actor without notability, people know her very rarely, don't deserve a article in wikipedia.ABCDE22 (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is purely promotional and subject is not notable; fails WP:NACTOR. Please note the article creator's name. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sources pointed out by Czar still have not been analyzed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sources listed in the article seem to suggest that the actress was likely to be the "next big thing" of Indian TV, but this does not seem to have come true. So WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with WP:NPOV raised by the editors above. The subjects also fails WP:GNG. No reliable coverage outside gossip columns about the subject itself that are not promotional in nature. Most are passing mentions. Another issue to be flagged is that there seems to be a direct WP:COI as the name of the account suggests. The author seems to be WP:SPA. All the edits are about Pooja Sharma and her one or two ongoing daily soaps. Most probably the account is held by a promotion company on hire. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the first few references, 3 are interviews and hence primary references. Others seem to be channel pushed coverage of its serials hence promotional in nature. Only reference that seems to be a neutral coverage is the demise of the father of the person in an accident. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:30, 10 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Cranfield[edit]

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

Non-notable politician, fails WP:GNG. TheKaphox T 21:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE A LexisNexis search revealed three hits total for the following search terms: "John Cranfield St. Helena", "John Cranfield Saint Helena", and "John Cranfield Vilma". None provide any content whatsoever other than he attended a wedding and someone with the same name finished 47th at the Guelph Triathlon in 2014. Not a bad social calendar, but not notable. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable politician fails WP:GNG per nom. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete politican so unnotable we have no clue what his position was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article definitely needs improvement, but in this case Google is your friend — as of September 2016, he is deputy speaker of the Legislative Council of Saint Helena, making him an elected member of a legislature. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POLITICIAN falls under WP:ANYBIO which still requires WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources. Even WP:POLOUTCOMES still states they need to meet our notability guidelines. In doing my WP:BEFORE search I found some of the sources Bearcat found which I verify they're an elected official, but what I'm not seeing is coverage in reliable sources. I'm inclined in this case to opt for delete without prejudice for recreation if it can be demonstrated that this individual does meet GNG. Mkdw ^talk 07:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To put this in context, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha has a population of 7,729. So we're talking about the deputy speaker of a 15 person legislative assembly. I don't think we can automatically assume OUTCOMES on this one because this seems like an outlier example. Mkdw ^talk 07:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in this thread, I believe there should be a presumption of official government sources as reliable. The largest concern of official government sources is that of self-publication. At the same time, there ought to be a recognition that an official source not only produces many of the facts that third-party sources rely upon, but must be trusted for certain information - as in this case, the list of current law makers. In this subject's case, there is third-party coverage (see here). - --Enos733 (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So then what's the arbitrary population cutoff above which we grant a legislator an automatic presumption of notability because legislator even if the sourcing isn't actually in the article yet (which we most certainly do routinely do), and below which we suddenly don't anymore? Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be in favour of assigning an arbitrary population cutoff because I also don't support the presumption of notability without significant coverage. OUTCOMES, an essay, already states articles should be judged by their own merits. I prefer to continue to use GNG, a pillar policy, and search for sources to inform my opinion at AFD. When that search turns up next to nothing, then for the sake of AFD arguments, I'm simply noting that the relative scale of this subject may be a contributing factor to this reason. I also don't see anything special about this individual or situation that we would want to invoke the exception to the rule. If there's a consensus to keep this article with the knowledge that this person does not meet GNG, that is the right of the community to do so, but it's not a consensus I'm in favour of in this particular instance. Mkdw ^talk 05:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - interesting query by Bearcat. Is there an arbitrary limit to which self-governing colonial entities are considered so small that they are de facto local governments? Bearian (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:NPOL, which is not the same as WP:POLOUTCOMES, specifically states that "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are notable. There is nothing which says that the territory has to be over a certain arbitrary size and nor should such a rule be introduced (and especially not through an AFD) AusLondonder (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL doesn't say "are notable". If you read the top of the section, it's additional criteria, and the section starts off with "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." No one is using the size of the territory as the grounds for which this article should be deleted. We're saying there's NO significant coverage. It's a small place and maybe that's the reason why. Mkdw ^talk 02:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NPOL. I appreciate the question of whether "self-governing colonial entities are considered so small that they are de facto local governments?," but the balance lies in favor of "self-governing" and that the effort that would be necessary to formulate an additional guideline for size of a self-governing entity. - --Enos733 (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds of NPOL are you arguing keep? WP:BASIC is the primary criteria of NPOL which actually states this article is not notable. All the other criteria like being an elected official is seocndary criteria and without GNG is deemed non-notable. Mkdw ^talk 06:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, as one editor stated "The various SNGs exist to provide presumptions of notability in lieu of the immediate existence of secondary sources" Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 40. However, the policy is "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," not secondary sources (of which government reports fall in that category). A reliable source is a source that, primarily is verifiable. In the subject's case, I do not think there is doubt among editors that the subject was an elected official, and would meet WP:POLOUTCOMES. The only question is whether the subject should be afforded the presumption of notability because we have not found any secondary source (to write about him generally? to say that he is an elected official? To publish results of an election or appointment?). In this case, there are government records of his votes, his date(s) of service as a legislative official. However, there might be a question of whether the subdivision is a local government or at the state/provincial level. - --Enos733 (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Idle, hair-splitting query Can anyone speak to how other colonies have been handled? I initially misread this and thought he was deputy speaker for the group of islands, which would satisfy NPOL to me. But he's deputy speaker for legislature of only one of the three, St. Helena. If the polity in question is the UK (from our page on the question: "Because of the islands' status as a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, they are currently ruled over by Elizabeth II and her government in the United Kingdom, with the Governor of Saint Helena serving as the monarch's representative to the territory" i.e. all three islands as best I can understand it), it seems to me that the group of islands is the provincial/state level, and the subdivision--i.e. St. Helena--is a sub-provincial i.e. local government. Unless it's usually interpreted differently?

But backing up to try not to miss the forest for the trees. Unless there's a really firm answer on that, I'm inclined to say this is best merged and redirected to the Legislative Council of Saint Helena page until such time as a willing editor can collect sufficient sources to write more than just his wife's name, and, they went to a party one time. (I know it was an important party! As such their attendance is already covered at List of wedding guests of Prince William and Catherine Middleton.) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chief Secretary of St. Helena. (forgive this stream of consciousnesses edit, I was thinking this one through) St. Helena has a population of 10, actually, 4,534. However it is a colony that manages its own internal affairs. I did find coverage of him in the Tristan Times, [6] the local paper St. Helena shares with Ascension and Tristan da Cunha ~~(pop. 11) Oh, never mind. I was trying to be amusing about the size of these places,~~ we would not, of course, keep the mayor of a town this small. We do, however, treat heads of state as inherently notable. Even Liechtenstein (pop. 33,720). I propose that we could redirect to an article on the model of Chief Executive of the Falkland Islands, with a list of incumbents. If creator of this article or someone else is willing to take a minute to create such an article, with Falklands as a model and info provided at Politics of Saint Helena as a starting point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your example quite works. Looking through the list of Chief Executive of the Falkland Islands, many of the former chief executives have their own article. Even the members of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands have their own article. - --Enos733 (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An off-topic misunderstanding
See WP:PERX as an argument to avoid. Mkdw ^talk 01:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Mkdw: See WP:PERX: If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] I don't see the relevance since that sentence talks about the nominator's argument and you said per someone else's comment. The actual part of WP:PERX that talks about comments endorsing other comments is the part that states, "comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion" which is to what I was referring. The link you provided literally argues against the point you're trying to make. Mkdw ^talk 06:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] I don't see the relevance of a section titled "Per nominator" then. Maybe best to read a section before trying your hardest to disqualify other's arguments. Bearcat directly showed how it meets WP:NPOLITICIAN. No further commentary needed. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Do you not see the irony in telling someone to read the section when the section literally has "Keep as per User:IvanIdea's statement. – Suckup, 11:38, 1 April 2004 (UTC)" as one of the examples and states "comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion"? Surely you understand that sections contain sentences about many different things, but that sentence you cited literally only referred to one thing? Mkdw ^talk 07:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] This argument about the intent of the essay writer is silly and has no point, but when would the nomination statement include "a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping" the article? This isn't AfK. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] That sentence is only ever meant for a delete !vote that states "per nom". The section accounts for keep "per" !votes with a separate paragraph and it means that there is never a situation where a "per x" !vote is suitable in favour of keep. This is getting off-topic and it wasn't my intention to offend you. I saw your comment as an argument to avoid, as described in the essay, and I pointed it out because those !votes are often discounted in closes. I was hoping to engage in a more thorough discussion and I apologize if I offended you. Mkdw ^talk 07:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An off-topic misunderstanding

See WP:PERX as an argument to avoid. Mkdw ^talk 01:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: See WP:PERX:

If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient.

Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance since that sentence talks about the nominator's argument and you said per someone else's comment. The actual part of WP:PERX that talks about comments endorsing other comments is the part that states, "comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion" which is to what I was referring. The link you provided literally argues against the point you're trying to make. Mkdw ^talk 06:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of a section titled "Per nominator" then. Maybe best to read a section before trying your hardest to disqualify other's arguments. Bearcat directly showed how it meets WP:NPOLITICIAN. No further commentary needed. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not see the irony in telling someone to read the section when the section literally has "Keep as per User:IvanIdea's statement. – Suckup, 11:38, 1 April 2004 (UTC)" as one of the examples and states "comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion"? Surely you understand that sections contain sentences about many different things, but that sentence you cited literally only referred to one thing? Mkdw ^talk 07:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This argument about the intent of the essay writer is silly and has no point, but when would the nomination statement include "a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping" the article? This isn't AfK. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is only ever meant for a delete !vote that states "per nom". The section accounts for keep "per" !votes with a separate paragraph and it means that there is never a situation where a "per x" !vote is suitable in favour of keep. This is getting off-topic and it wasn't my intention to offend you. I saw your comment as an argument to avoid, as described in the essay, and I pointed it out because those !votes are often discounted in closes. I was hoping to engage in a more thorough discussion and I apologize if I offended you. Mkdw ^talk 07:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. For what it's worth, I added a few sources to the article to establish his political positions for WP:NPOLITICIAN. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to hat the part of the discussion that got off topic. I'll take a look at the sources. Mkdw ^talk 07:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MBisanz: I don't believe you relisted this correctly because on the new relisted date you manually added exclusion coding to the day's entry. Mkdw ^talk 01:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BURDEN hasn't been satisfied here. We've established they're an elected official, but every single keep argument is relying on an argument to avoid: WP:MUSTBESOURCES. No guideline supersedes WP:GNG and WP:POLOUTCOMES is an essay. We have yet to find even a single reliable source let alone significant coverage to establish whether this individual is notable. Yes, they're elected, but we do not have a policy or guideline that states even if they have no coverage -- because they're elected we keep their article. Mkdw ^talk 01:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Ramaksoud2000 added a number of mostly primary sources. I'm inclined to !vote weak keep. I think for any typical bio the threshold would be much much higher but I do believe establishing notability is relative. We can't expect the same level of coverage for a history academic as we would for a movie celebrity. The same is true for politicians and even more so from ones holding high levels of government in very sparsely populated centres. Mkdw ^talk 07:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,, Recognizing the additions that Ramaksoud2000 has made have improved the article but even for small-locality politicians the WP:GNG and WP:BIO guidelines still apply. This article lacks significant coverage in independent sources. Improvements in sourcing now raise to level of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus on the viability of a merge/redirect closure, given the lack of dedicated sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources do not have to be online (WP:SOURCEACCESS). We have found sources online that verify his positions as a Justice of the Peace and deputy speaker. He has certainly been covered in Saint Helena publications that are not online. Cases like this where online sources are scarce, but the politician's positions are verifiable, is the reason why WP:NPOLITICIAN exists. If WP:NPOLITICIAN is to be ignored whenever online sources are hard to find, then we should just redirect WP:NPOLITICIAN to WP:GNG. WP:POLITICIAN is a notability criterion all by itself, thus I disagree with User:Czar. From WP:POLITICIAN:
This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless.
Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a secondary criterion for a reason. Read the first line of "Additional criteria": meeting the secondary criteria is a good indicator that sources exist, such that an article can be written on the topic. But sources need to exist. I don't have a horse in this race—the editors above complained that there are no sources, and without satisfying that straightforward, policy-backed complaint, a merge compromise is the most obvious solution, as there isn't consensus to keep the article. If you have offline sources to show them, go for it.

czar 22:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will just add a request that please, if at all possible, focus the search for additiobal offline references to sources outside Saint Helena. I'm actually a proponent of taking local sources more into account than many of my counterparts usually do at AFD, but even I think they need to be used in concert with outside attention to establish notability--if all we have is the perspective of the hometown newspaper, we really can't produce anything even close to satisfying the goal of balanced coverage described at WP:WHYN. (For clarity: I make this remark with regard to the GNG case, because I don't see a clear case being made that the subject meets NPOL, even if we were to take NPOL as an exception to GNG's requirement.) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. My query not having been answered, I am convinced this is a case of first impression. Deputy speaker of a small colony is likely to be notable, and this case, he appears to make the grade. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources do not establish notability. 1292simon (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the article is well sourced, but the positions held by the subject do not automatically result in notability for every person who has held them. 1292simon (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The GNG appears to be met, as does WP:NPOLITICIAN - I'm assuming people haven't read the article's latest incarnation, there are 7 reliable sources now. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus on assessing whether the sources are sufficient to establish notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To me the question is whether the government of St. Helena is more akin a subnational government (such as a state or province) or a local government (e.g city). However, if it is established that the office held is more akin to a subnational government, then my assertion is that the only source needed to meet the notability requirement under WP:POLITICIAN is confirmation that the subject serves in that office. This could come from an official government source, including, but not limited to, election results, an entry on the webpage for that office, publication of official votes, or government stationary. What is established is that the subject holds an elective office as discussed by Ramaksoud2000. I do not believe that a strict application of WP:Primary applies with verification of elected officials WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. - --Enos733 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has its own elected government, its own constitution, can make its own laws - it's no less notable than the other British Overseas Territories and its status certainly isn't that of a "local government" - in U.S. terms, it's a State, rather than a county, with a Governor, a legislature and an executive. The population size doesn't determine notability, it's the legal status that swings it. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the legal status is what determines notability. The question, though, was raised earlier by Innisfree987, who suggested that the "group of islands is the provincial/state level, and the subdivision--i.e. St. Helena--is a sub-provincial i.e. local government." I am not familiar enough with British Overseas Territories to evaluate that question. --Enos733 (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no higher legislative body for Saint Helena, other than Parliament: Saint_Helena,_Ascension_and_Tristan_da_Cunha#Constitution. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there's no higher tier of government that covers that group of islands - like I said, the Saint Helena government is at the same level as, for example, the Falkland Islands government. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Falkland Islands has one unified legislature for the whole group though, with representatives from different places. But by contrast--assuming the WP entry is correct--the St. Helena/Ascension/Tristan da Cunha group, which is one territory, has three separate legislatures. Seems like a subdivision of the territory to me. And then there's still the matter of--we really do not have enough to write a bio anyhow. Will elaborate on sourcing problems below. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Falkland Islands does not have a separate legislature for each island in the group - if it did, I'd agree with you, but we aren't really comparing like with like. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since he's been established as deputy speaker of the legislative council, there has been consensus to keep because he passes WP:POLITICIAN. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the relist request and in light of repeated suggestions ivoters haven't read the current draft, I wanted to give a rundown of the sources as they now stand. The sources in the entry plus the one I see identified here at AfD (existence of offline sources has been asserted but no citations given, so unfortunately not verifiable) are:

Hometown secondary sources (here "property of the St. Helena Herald"; here "serving St. Helena and her community worldwide"; and here "Friends of St. Helena", that last additionally being just a direct copy of this press release)
Three trivial mentions (one sentence, one sentence and not-even-a-sentence) from outside outlets.
Two press releases (the aforementioned and this) from the St. Helena government, which Enos rightly points out should have some standing to confirm political position, but as they're not secondary sources, they don't help with GNG.

To me this pretty clearly does not meet the GNG standard as regularly practiced. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you can really dismiss every single news provider in Saint Helena as merely "hometown sources" given the fact that the nearest other place to St. Helena is across 800 miles of ocean. I know the population of the place is small but that's no reason to reject its press as not meeting the GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to dismiss, just describing how I've usually seen GNG applied: in my experience, news sources from a very small place about that very small place, if not accompanied by additional, independent attention, are generally taken as insufficient to provide balanced coverage of topics in that place. For that matter, much larger outlets are, on their own, also considered insufficient to establish notability for topics in their own locale: for instance, if the New York press covered a Manhattan restaurant but no other outlets did, it might well not pass GNG. For the record, I'm fairly "inclusionist" on this question--there are people who would tell you local sources can't count toward GNG at all (e.g.), whereas I think they ought to count toward combined sources if they're accompanied by other perspectives to balance them. We just really don't have even that here. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:29, 6 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, fails WP:GNG. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Rosenberg[edit]

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

This page is nearly empty. It has been an orphan article and had multiple issues for over a year. And contrary to the anonymous insistence below, it seems he is entirely unnoticed in the Orthodox community and in media, save for his many and varied attempts at self-promotion. I strongly suspect that this was one of them, and no one ever noticed until now. As Wikipedia is not the place for that, please delete in accord with notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1304:402F:6D63:2020:CD6B:18F0 (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nomination completed from Talk:Bernhard Rosenberg#AFD Petition — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's the founder and deserter of "Rabbis for Trump." Nothing in the article about that, but there should be, of course. I might not keep him otherwise, but that fact tips the scale. DonFB (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His long list of 10 books are just personal handouts for courses- not even self published. He has one book he edited and it was published as under two titles and a pamphlet on mourning. He is not notable as an academic or author. He is NN as a rabbi and he is not notable as a political organizer. Sending a few emails to the press about a political candidate without organization, fund-raising, or speeches is NN. His major activity is self-promotion, but as noted, no one else takes notice of him.--Jayrav (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rabbis for Trump was a Facebook page he created. I don't think it had a particularly large following before he quit it. 2604:2000:1304:402F:45AF:1E58:E244:F282 (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How many times can I write "Not in the sources?" Bearian (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as a rabbi, speaker, organizer or anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 WFDF World Ultimate & Guts Championship[edit]

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

Non notable sport. No coverage in secondary sources to establish notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Couldn't find any secondary sources outside of a quick check. It's unfortunate, I would be okay with a userfy if additional coverage could be found later. South Nashua (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Language Reform for Ethiopia[edit]

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

Book not discussed in reliable sources Siuenti (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in sources. DonFB (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book is notable enough to pass NBOOK. There just isn't any coverage out there that would be considered a notability giving RS. It also doesn't help that there are Amazon links in the article, but I'll remove those in a second. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stock Circles[edit]

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

No non-trivial coverage from independent sources. Sources are all PR or from the article subject. Holopoj (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. References in article are far insufficient to meet WP:NCORP. Searching does not turn up anything better. MB 04:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert. No coverage other than PR releases, own website. DonFB (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KiwiMan) and no !votes for deletion are otherwise present, so procedurally closing at this time. No prejudice against re-nomination for deletion by a user in good standing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Tetro[edit]

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

~~Non-Notable Person. Doesn't cover the guidelines.~~ One4Onenz (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is flighty, gossipy, not much substance, but she keeps turning up in "the papers," usually with a photo -- a middling celebrity, undoubtedly far more well-known "down under" than "up top" (but doesn't that further the goal of beating back systemic bias?) -- she gets my vote to stay in the 'pedia. Article could be improved of course. DonFB (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nominator's account has been reported to SPI. Schwede 66 17:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and improve per DonFB: obvious bad-faith nomination by blocked sockpuppet, already passes WP:BASIC and plenty of WP:RS for her in GNews. Wikishovel (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KiwiMan) and no !votes for deletion are otherwise present, so procedurally closing at this time. No prejudice against re-nomination for deletion by a user in good standing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Wilson (broadcaster)[edit]

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

~~All Interview Sources. Non-Notable.~~ One4Onenz (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not Ed Murrow, but gets plenty of press, with photos; published author. Article may not get much more in-depth than now, but for me, his coverage is "significant." DonFB (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed. I think we have enough non-affiliated news results. The nominator is a new account apparently created solely to bring a raft of NZ bio articles to Afd, and I've noted elsewhere some issues with these noms. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nominator's account has been reported to SPI. Schwede 66 17:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Shawn in Montreal: obvious bad-faith nomination by blocked sockpuppet, plenty of WP:RS for him in GNews. Wikishovel (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT #3 and possibly #2. The nominator is a newly created account, apparently to bring New Zealand bio articles to Afd. Gnews shows Peirse is much more than a "movie extra" and the nominator either has not read the article, or is choosing to misrepresent it for some reason.(non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Peirse[edit]

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

Is a movie extra. Non-Notable Actress. One4Onenz (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KiwiMan) and no !votes for deletion are otherwise present, so procedurally closing at this time. No prejudice against re-nomination for deletion by a user in good standing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Howard-Smith[edit]

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

~~Sources are not notable. TV Personality is simply not notable enough for Wikipedia.~~ One4Onenz (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of a series of Afds from a new account created solely (it seems) to bring NZ bio articles to Afd. Once again, the subject appears to be manifestly notable. What exactly is "not notable" about the New Zealand media coverage displayed via Gnews, which includes headlined stories in major NZnews outlets? Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nominator's account has been reported to SPI. Schwede 66 17:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and report/block nominator for disruptive editing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourced article, and don't understand nominator's rationale that "TV personality is simply not notable." Passes WP:ENTERTAINER based on multiple television hosting roles alone. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not sure why this discussion was listed in Women-related deletion discussions when the subject is male? -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep obvious bad-faith nomination: plenty of WP:RS showing in GNews for him. Wikishovel (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KiwiMan) and no !votes for deletion are otherwise present, so procedurally closing at this time. No prejudice against re-nomination for deletion by a user in good standing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Kereama[edit]

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

~~This wikipedia article has sources that are not really notable. Yes anyone can be a donor. Doesn't make a person notable. If I am wrong can someone fix?~~ One4Onenz (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nominator's account has been reported to SPI. Schwede 66 17:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: obvious bad-faith nomination by blocked sockpuppet, plenty of WP:RS for him in GNews. Wikishovel (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. References are presently insufficient but lack of these on its own is not sufficient reason to delete. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009 IIHF InLine Hockey World Championship[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep World Championships of a sport. And the page isn't much different in condition that most of these sorts of pages. World Championships in a major sport are notable. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well developed page detailing a world championship run by a major sporting body. Different than many of the other pages from this user I believe.18abruce (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article could use improvement not deletion per WP:ATD. Highest level of sport = notable. Whether there are redlinks and the creating editor is active or not are not relevant points. Hmlarson (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hmlarson: your argument boils down to WP:SURMOUNTABLE... The highest level of a sport doesn't automatically make it notable. Notability must be established. The highest level of competitive basket weaving doesn't automatically get a page, plus WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that an editor came in and created hundreds of pages about a sport without establishing notability IS relevant. And the fact that the page links to dozens of other pages that don't exists (many have recently been deleted) IS relevant. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are essays, not guidelines. The editor created the article in 2008 and it has since been contributed to by numerous other editors in the 8+ years since. This discussion will help determine whether the article meets inclusion requirements. Hmlarson (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - "The fact that an editor came in and created hundreds of pages about a sport without establishing notability IS relevant," well it would be worth discussing, if it were true for this article. It is not.18abruce (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finland women's national inline hockey team Hmlarson (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 NCRHA B Division season[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced and non-notable sportscruft. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010 NCRHA Junior College Division Collegiate Roller Hockey National Championships[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced and non-notable sportscruft. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 NCRHA Junior College Division season[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced and non-notable sportscruft. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 NCRHA Division II season[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT & WP:RAWDATA. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced and non-notable sportscruft. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NCRHA Division II Collegiate Roller Hockey National Championships[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incomplete, unreferenced and non-notable sportscruft. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NARCh Finals Pro Division[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced and non-notable sportscruft. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All-time RHI team performance list[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 05:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced and non-notable sportscruft. Seems to be Original Research and a misunderstanding that Wikipedia is not free webhosting. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 NCRHA Division II season[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and also delete 2012–13 NCRHA B Division season, 2012–13 NCRHA Junior College Division season and 2012–13 NCRHA Division I season as unreferenced and non-notable sportscruft. This is not even a professional league as far as I can tell and the year by year details of its various divisions seems to be of no encyclopaedic value at all. I'd be quite happy for the references to prove me wrong but there are none. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Also support DanielRigal's motion to delete those three articles. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and all additional articles listed above. GauchoDude (talk) 16:47, 10 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. Already deleted by Juliancolton as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007–08 PIHA season. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 PIHA Pro season[edit]

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

Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not Trivial. Standard season page for a professional sports league. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I am not convinced that a minor professional sports league like this needs to have season articles. Of course it can have season articles but the usual rules apply. That means valid referencing and a demonstration of notability. What we have here is nothing more than a link to the top level of the PIHA's website. That is not sufficient for verifiability and I see this as just over-detailed sportscruft of no encyclopaedic value. If the article were stripped down to what can be reliably referenced and had some third party references then that might be OK. Alternatively, if that only left a couple of sentences, that could be merged elsewhere. The Google News links don't show any obvious candidates for sources though. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:33, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Hearts (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable film - as per the original AfD Peter Rehse (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficient sources to establish notability. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found some Indonesian citations, such as a general article from Kapanlagi, an article dealing with the Movie's soundtrack, and an article about the movie's theme song. The film may not be notable in the English-speaking world, but it is notable in Indonesia. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has been covered in Indonesian souces. While reliable sources can be hard to find given the language barrier, the film does appear to be covered in other languages, enough to pass the general notability guideline. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content from reliable sources doesn't amount to as much as a capsule review. More is needed for WP:FILM All of the sources suggested above contain interview material involving people connected to the film. Interview responses from connected people don't add to notability. Two of the articles are about creating a video clip promoting the film and make only brief mention of the film itself. I found nothing useful in my searches. Gab4gab (talk) 22:12, 8 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 List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mace of Cuthbert[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. No non-primary sources talking about it in any depth. Its already present with all the standard information on the Major Artifacts list here, so there really isn't much else needed to Merge at this point. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge as above. I might recommend merging to Saint Cuthbert, but I don't know how notable he is. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Like Vecna, the character came along after the 1st ed. AD&D artifact named after him. Jclemens (talk) 08:06, 8 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 Flanaess. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dyvers[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flanaess. Just another D&D location with no sources establishing any sort of notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:02, 7 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 Flanaess. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frost Barbarians[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flanaess. Un-notable fictional kingdom with no non-primary sources. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdirizak Jurile[edit]

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

Not a notable individual. Plus source doesn't mention that which is added in the Wikipedia article about him. He is not a known individual and the page deserves to be removed. Buraomagnificent (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject served in the Somalia parliament, passing WP:POLITICIAN. - --Enos733 (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. A person who not only served in a national parliament, as Enos733 mentions, but also served as a government minister for several years is "not a notable individual"? It is true that most of the statements in the article are not supported by the cited source, but the fact that he was a member of the upper house of the parliament is supported, and that is enough to establish notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)
Keep - I had prodded this solely on the procedural grounds that it was a blp without a single source. Once sources were provided, the prod became moot and was rightly removed. As above editors have pointed out, this person definitely pass WP:POLITICIAN. Needs better sourcing and clean-up, but not removal. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Government ministers are default notable, even if the government is less than fully functional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Dale[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable character from one episode of one TV show. The article is entirely unreferenced and uncited, and does not meet the general notability criteria. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominator hit the nail on the head. No reason this page should be here. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete Nothing here worth...

...Jesus Christ... there's tons of these! See the completely unsourced That Peter Kay Thing and its unsourced sister List of Phoenix Nights characters, when several of these characters have their own unsourced stubs that are in many cases even shorter than the unsourced sections in the main article. One editor alone made eight different articles]. I don't even... TimothyJosephWood 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, interesting. Maybe we should add the following?

I guess you could just redirect them somewhere. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:11, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment events at Perth Arena[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place for detailed event histories at individual venues. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:IINFO. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps that the both of you can categorize the article under "low-importance" but that shouldn't be a valid reason for proposed deletion unless the article is grossly incomplete in the first place. Lemongirl942 was aware of my editing pattern and she has always believed that my edit was done out of good faith. I personally believe that it is perfectly alright to do so as long as I can provide reliable references in the first place. Even Arjayay whom I have spoken too previously have told me that the differences between WP:List and WP:IINFO are disputable among editors. Entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia, Forum Copenhagen and List of events at the 3Arena are the inspirations behind the motivations for my edits. List of events at the Mercedes-Benz Arena wasn't created by me but the existence of those articles makes me wonder why some pages are proposed for deletion whereas Entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia, List of events at the 3Arena and Entertainment events at The Forum are not considered for deletion. I believe that we try to avoid double-standardness here, isn't it? Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked those pages, the page on List of events at the 3Arena was created by Handsopened on 29 November 2010 but there is no plan for deletion despite the article not citing any references in the first place, although I can try my best to improve the page by adding more citacions in the coming days. List of events at the 3Arena and Entertainment events at Perth Arena are of similar nature I believe, and therefore categorizing the article under "Low-Importance" would be a better move than a proposed deletion. Similarly, both articles on List of events at the Mercedes-Benz Arena and Entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia were created by Tedwang94 and 2.30.251.152 respectively but there were no problems with their article page, so I was wondering if anyone of you have something against me although I don't wish to speculate further since the discussions are still on going. Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to argue that those other pages are not appropriate for Wikipedia either, so not trying to impose a double standard! CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists
The subject is not "too general or too broad in scope .... For example, a list of brand names" nor is it "too specific ... [like] The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana""
WP:SALAT acknowledges that some editors see a conflict between lists and "What Wikipedia is not" and "feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge." However, this is not a "list of shades of colors of apple sauce"; people may wish to refer to this list to see the types of acts that are featured, or confirm whether, and/or when, a particular artist appeared.
As stated above, there are numerous such lists and the consensus to date appears to be to keep them, - Arjayay (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provides encyclopedic content not available anywhere else. It is not an arbitrary list. It is well referenced. Aoziwe (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good chronological and well referenced list. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of "keep votes" but they generally seem to suffer from a case of WP:ITSUSEFUL. More comments needed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The event is notable but probably not the person, but as no consensus has formed around an alternative title I will leave that open to further discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Pan[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable. Not every criminal case is notable. Quis separabit? 14:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But not every criminal case results in a book by a major publisher (Dundurn Press), and there does seem to be substantial, even international [7] [8] [9], coverage. The case would meet WP:GNG, but not as a biography of Jennifer Pan. Therefore, better to rename to Murder of Bich Ha Pan and restructure the content accordingly. Dl2000 (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Jennifer Pan is not independently notable, but I can see an article on the Murder of Bieh Ha Pan. That article would need to be written differently than a bio of Jennifer though, so my vote is still a "delete" for this article, though with no prejudice about the creation of a new "murder of..." article. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been completely rewritten, expanded, sources, contectualizes - with sole exceptio of lede & infobox, satisfying this demand.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider Rename. Article is so badly written that an editor unfamiliar with this murder would assume that it was a family tragedy when In fact, this was anything but a "routine" murder due to the way it was treated by the press and by the East Asian immigrant community, see for example: Tragedy of ‘golden’ daughter’s fall resonates with Asian immigrant children,[10] in the Washington Post.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it is far more efficient to keep the article and rename it, than to delete the sources and hope that someone starts all over again.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a Canadian journalist is out with a "true crime" book on this murder; a thing publishers and journalists do only when a crime is pre-sold. i.e. notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN I expanded article form stub to give some idea of the scope and impact of this murder. However, I did nothing to the lede or the infobox, pending outcome of this discussion. Article needs a new title, and a lede revised according to the new title. Note that the case became notorious because of the idea that culturally-specific Chinese Tiger parenting and the pressure on children of Chinese immigrants to be perfect backfired here into a tragic murder. Naming it after the book won't work, reason is: there is a book, but it got panned. Also, an article by a journalist who was a high school classmate of the "golden daughter" is said to have launched the incident into notoriety, so it's hardly fair to name the article after a book written by a different journalist. That article was written almost 5 years after the murder occurred, until then this murder relatively routine regional press attention. Frankly, I don't know what to call it. I can't find any sources calling it Murder of Bieh Ha Pan, PRESS ATTENTION is focused almost entirely on the daughter, the family relationship and "tiger parenting."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)@Rms125a@hotmail.com, Dl2000, and Fyddlestix:[reply]
Keep and rename to focus on the crime/trial, which is the true thing that's notable here. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, something like Trial of Jennifer Pan or Jennifer Pan Murder Case might work. Although it is the mother who was killed, the sources focus on Jennifer and her remarkable trajectory of fabulism, and on her relationship with her father, the "tiger Dad". E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and agree with recommendations to rename the article and format the article to fit the crime itself. This topic has significant media attention from established, reputable secondary sources like CBC, Toronto Life, etc that warrants sufficient notability for WP:GNG. Cyali (talk) 21:27, 10 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 06:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Checkout[edit]

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

This is WP:SPAM masquerading as an article. It appears to be written by an SPA. All the sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH and I can find no independent in-depth coverage of the company otherwise. PROD contested by IP without comment. shoy (reactions) 13:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Concur with nom. I went through every reference in the article and most are not independent. The ones that might be offer no in-depth coverage, they are mostly about products and just mention being distributed by Mr. Checkout. Does not meet WP:NCORP. MB 04:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a WP:PROMO page on a subject that's not yet notable; WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not directory for any random company. Light2021 (talk) 20:08, 8 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 Miss Maine. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Bouchard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Molly Bouchard

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

Bouchard has two blimps of notability. The first is not mentioned in the article and probably for good reason. I found it from this article [11] which at first I thought looked like a reliable source. The problem is that Star Search was a CBS publication, and this comes close to being self-produced PR for the show. 1 mention for a 12-year-old does not make someone notable. So we move on to the Miss Maine coverage. 2 are local news stories of the type "local person wins an award". 1 is a Miss America organization source that is not indepdent. The last is a one sentance passing mention in an article about something else that does not constitute significant coverage. None of this is enough to pass the general notability guidelines. We do not create articles for people who only get notcied for one event, expecially when it does not rise to the level of a major award as required by the biographical notability guidelines. Bouchard is just plain not notable and we should delete the article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning a state pageant is not enough for GNG. Nothing else found. Agree with analysis by nom. MB 04:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum As per WP:BEFORE C1, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Merger is ordinary editing, but the editors at Beauty Pageants have preferred to create standalone articles. The most that a notability argument can do in this case is flip the article so that it is not standalone, such as merged to Miss Maine; and given the longstanding content consensus by the content contributors, the issue is not relevant for an AfD forum.
Applicable policy is WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, and WP:Editing policy, which includes WP:PRESERVE. Policies are not optional. If this is supposed to be an IAR deletion, the argument is not so stated, thus cannot be directly adressed. Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Content consensus" by "content contributors" is an argument for ownership. Considering that the actual discussion on the beauty pageant talk page shows an overwhelming consensus by participants in the discussion that winners of sub-national pageants are not notable, the above argument ignores what the actual consensus caused by editor participation is. People do not get special ownership by being article creators.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for the your claim about consensus, what you've actually said is, "I have to admit for now my main concern is that we make it clear that winning sub-national pageants does not on its own make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)" You are concerned about making it "clear", which defines it that your view is that such consensus is "not clear". And I've also told you how you can get build the wall you want, which is to create a WP:NOT guideline. Attacking state-level winners using a death-by-one-thousand-cuts strategy is a plan to undermine WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. Unscintillating (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as past AfDs show so it shows this one is not different at all since only the mere participating is the information itself hence there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else regardless. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 7 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. WP:NPASR. Ineligible for soft deletion due to contested PROD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back for Good Tour[edit]

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

Prod removed by IP without improving the article. Prod text was "Non-notable concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been been unreferenced since it was created seven years ago and tagged as such for over a year." Justeditingtoday (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, either in article or in searches. Apparently the tour was just Germany and Austria, so there could conceivably be German-language results that don't come up in searches for the musician's or tour's English names, but thats what de-wiki is for. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:27, 11 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 Sensory analysis. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sensory participant[edit]

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

Not sure what this is. It looks like it is copied directly from whatever that source is, and whatever is or could be covered here could easily be covered in Sensory analysis. United States Man (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It's a plausible search term. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - probably to Sensory analysis. This may be useful information if presented correctly, but no reason why information on participants in a particular type of study shouldn't be included in the article on that type of research. Good faith effort by a new contributor, but they haven't quite gotten the hang of article creation yet, and seem to be creating a lot of new article that should probably be sections instead. TimothyJosephWood 14:57, 5 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon euryale seed cake[edit]

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

per WP:MANUAL Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. It should be "gorgon euryale" in case anyone is having problems searching, referring to Euryale ferox. So not a hoax, and a plausible type of food, but I can find no indication it’s independently notable of the description in Euryale ferox.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems there is a page for it on the Chinese WP: zh:芡实糕.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know Chinese, but going by the Google search results for the Chinese name, this seems to be quite popular. I'm veering towards moving this article to Gorgon cake and keeping it, but I'll wait for someone with knowledge of Mandarin to comment. utcursch | talk 16:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also of note: it has been considered for deletion on zh.wp and kept: zh:维基百科:页面存废讨论/记录/2014/07/05#芡实糕. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a note at WT:CHINA. Hopefully, more knowledgeable editors will be able to help. utcursch | talk 21:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Prisoner[edit]

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

Non-notable game with no independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources available are download or flash game sites, simple catalog entries, and wiki mirrors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm finding nothing in either news or WP:VGRS searches. TimothyJosephWood 13:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone is able to dig up some substantial coverage from offline sources, this topic looks to fails WP:GNG. Coverage from reliable independent online sources is non-existent and Mobygames does not list any available magazine reviews in its database. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project Pink Blue[edit]

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

This organization only has minor mentions from primary sources thereby failing WP:ORG. A major conflict of interest is also obvious —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the sources appear to be WP:RS; independent, secondary sources with editorial independence and control. Nigerian media seems overall to be unashamedly likely to praise those they see as worthies, but that and the WP:COI and lack of WP:NPOV in the article are content issues. There are definitely sources to indicate independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A respectable amount of sources already in the article, and it looks like there's plenty more where that came from. TimothyJosephWood 13:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article should be kept per User:Eggishorn the article also enjoy significant coverages on two major reliable sources like Premium Times and BellaNaija see here Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hybiz.tv[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Non-noteable online business channel. No reliable secondary sources could be located to confirm the notability of the subject. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete how is this still around?! I No notability and purely WP:PROMO. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Hybiz.tv is the only 24/7 web tv network exclusively dedicated to business, lifestyle, B2B". Yeah, that's most streaming television today, and complete fluff. Textbook WP:PROMO copy. Nate • (chatter) 03:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure unbridled promotion. TimothyJosephWood 12:52, 5 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.