< 6 January	8 January >

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harryadin Mahardika[edit]

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

Looking at his bio, he is a very long way off from meeting Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Schwede 66 23:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A total of 2 GS citations not remotely near to passing WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as absolutely nothing for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wanted to make sure that there was not a path to WP:PROF #8 (chief editor of the ASEAN Marketing Journal), but it's an obscure journal published by his institution (which, I might add, shut down my browser window with a phishing warning when I tried to look at its website). Seems to be an early-career academic. I don't see anything that would meet the other criteria. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:28, 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. According to the nominator's edit history he does not appear to have created such an article earlier on that day, nor does one appear to exist, nor would an Afd be required to redirect, if it did. There is no policy-based based argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Lewis (footballer, born 1997)[edit]

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

I created an article earlier today before 17:00 hours on Harry Lewis. A user has now created a second article. Kő Cloch (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Venezia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I have nominated the page for deletion because the subject is not notable as a soccer player per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, many claims within the article were un-sourced and unrealistic. There are no sources that I can find that justify the existence of this article. Loftybunch1 (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've moved this AFD from 2nd to first nom as article's never been nominated, Thanks .–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My mistake. I thought it had.Loftybunch1 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe this person fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Not finding any coverage or documentation outside of uncredible sources to support article claims.Demitrius39 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by playing in a number of fully-professional leagues - Lega Pro in Italy and Liga I in Romania. @Loftybunch1 and Demitrius39: you might want to reconsider your !votes. Giant Snowman 19:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Giant Snowman have you done investigation into the sources behind the article? I voted delete because there are no sources to report actual match appearances/career stats. One article from Sky Sports Italia appears credible, suggesting he did complete foreign transfer to armenia, but there's no record of him playing in Lega pro, or in australia as claimed later in the article. Even the article discussing his time in armenia only mentions he played in to matches, and doesn't describe the opponents, his performance, or whether or not the matches were competitive or preseason/friendly. I do stand by my vote.Demitrius39 (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tutto Calciattore should not be considered credible.Demitrius39 (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. No indication why the sources provided should not be considered credible. Fenix down (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking at [1], it appears that his appearances have been greatly exaggerated. Though it does appear he barely meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Perhaps User:Lonmilpsa could opine. Nfitz (talk) 20:11, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Rangarajan[edit]

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

Biography of a CEO who doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines. He gets mentions in reliable sources, but the coverage doesn't appear to be significant. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a familiar story where the only people who edit the page are drive-by hagiographers. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some coverage but not enough to warrant a separate article Spiderone 14:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the sources are unreliable or shallow. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Murphy Cup playoffs[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.. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left and was clearly trying to use wikipedia as a webhost (WP:NOTWEBHOST). Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all that refer to the Murphy Cup playoffs in the title. The Murphy Cup doesn't even have an article of its own so I think those two have no chance at all of being notable and there isn't even a plausible merge target to suggest. If they had references they might show otherwise but they don't.
Weak delete or optional limited merge to Roller Hockey International for all the season articles. These are unreferenced, ludicrously overdetailed and generally crufty but if anybody can pick out a little valid and reliably referenceable information then it could be merged. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 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. There is no real established policy on this, except there is previous consensus that they do not belong in the articles on the real years. If you want to reverse that consensus, then feel free to start a discussion on that, and if it closes in favor then I can restore all of these to aid in the merge. The "delete" !voters have the clear majority, and several "keep" !votes are described as weak or primarily for the purpose of preventing a merge into the main year articles. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of works of fiction set in 2029[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it fails WP:OR by being an article where no reliable published sources exist. The article also fails WP:GNG because there is no "significant coverage" for this topic. The author put the comment saying "Please do not delete. While it may be lacking entries right now, it will become more useful as 2029 approaches, as can be seen for lists for previous years." This is not a valid reason to keep this article because there is no sourcing available now meaning it is WP:TOOSOON. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to nominate these articles because they all have the same problems which are a lack of reliable sources and the concepts of these articles are not notable. This is because they are narrow lists and knowing what time period a fictional work took place in is not notable topic. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 21:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 23:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 23:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems these type of articles have been deleted before with the result to delete. Here is the link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Works of fiction set in 2034. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 22:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the previous AfD linked showed that there is a consensus that these articles are not notable (fail WP:LISTN, WP:IINFO etc.); I see no reason why this needs to be changed. Spiderone 23:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The previous AFD (which I personally closed as delete) only included lists of books set in future years. Though some commenters discussed lists of books by year of setting generally, that was not relevant to the AFD or its closure and the consensus that was reached was not that broad. That these have all been lumped together may make this an overbroad and unworkable AFD. The nominator's contention that this is OR is also incorrect, so long as the book itself is clear about its time of setting, and it is also not credible that the setting of a notable book would be unmentioned by any secondary source. The one possibly fruitful line of discussion I can see that would apply to all of these equally is whether it makes sense to pinpoint years like this, as the narrative of many books will span multiple years. postdlf (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pings - @KAP03: it's standard practice to notify the creator or primary contributor(s) of articles nominated for deletion. I didn't check all of the user pages, but the one I did check didn't have a notice. Easy to overlook with so many nominations, I understand. Pinging them here (sans indeffed accounts): @GusF, Vsuarezp, Seanpaulk, Louder2014a, Football2013a, Eagle2012a, Arthur Rubin, Beeblebrox, Piniricc65, NovaBrunswick, Hansen Sebastian, Pablito064, J 1982, Tullius Detritus, and Zombi-Wan Kenobi: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are a couple possibilities here. The question isn't whether OR is involved, because it can be limited to just works that have Wikipedia articles and the relevant information is the sort that can be primary sourced. The question is whether it's an appropriate subject for a list. That would mean that either a given "list of works of fiction set in [year]" is notable (demonstrated, typically, by reliable sources which provide similar lists or otherwise treat them as a group), or that it serves as a navigational aid for Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure whether the first is true. The few brief searches I did just now weren't fruitful. I'm inclined to say that they are indeed valid navigational lists, though. Navigational lists don't have to be notable because they're more like navboxes or categories in their purpose. As it says at WP:LISTN, there's no clear consensus about determining notability of these sorts of cross-categorization lists (lists of X of/in Y). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all back to parent article. In addition to Rhododendrites's argument that the deletion reason is not in keeping with guidelines, there was never a real consensus to split them off from the corresponding year articles. After some limited discussion, WP:YEARS was edited to suggest creation of these articles, but consensus was never established. The net effect of the previous deletion was to completely remove information from Wikipedia, while there was still a consensus that it should be somewhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:YEARS and WP:RY have not yet been notified. I do not trust myself to make a neutral notification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Arthur Rubin: Parent article as in the year (e.g. 2010), List of works of fiction by year, or something else? Though I wasn't part of those discussions (nor any other at WP:YEARS), including a list of fiction at the main year article (presuming that's what you mean) seems odd to me. Major events, notable births, notable deaths, Nobel Prizes.... and whatever fiction that happens to be set in that year? There are any number of awards, book releases, etc. that are notable. If it were deemed worth keeping somewhere, I'd argue to keep it separate just on the basis of spinning out content that takes up an undue amount of space. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Parent article as in the year. The consensus (in 2011, WT:RY) that these articles should be spun out from the year articles seems weak to me.

I also notice WP:RY wasn't informed of the 2014 deletion discussion about 2039, suggesting that that close was improper. WP:RETAIN still comes to mind, as many of the articles on works of fiction are not properly categorized, as well as the appropriate categories also being deleted at one point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Found the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Recent_years/Archive_2#Video_gamesin_fiction_section (I presume). Based on my skimming, the consensus isn't super strong to spin out, but the alternative does not look to be merging back in (or, at the time, simply leaving them be). There looks to be more support to just remove them or to be extremely selective (along the lines of 1984, 2001, and other particularly notable works of fiction in which the year plays an important role as opposed to a random number that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the actual year) rather than what would exist if we just merged these back in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the existence of such articles is that contributors interested in historical or futuristic fiction were putting sections into the year articles where they could be confused with real events. So in general I'm in favour of keeping them if they have content, and I OPPOSE any move to transfer the content to the main year articles. Deb (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as navigational aids (see my comments above), and oppose a merge into the main year articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was another afd where the consensus was to delete and the articles were not in the near future even at the time. Here is the link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 in fiction Secondly, what year a fictional work takes place in is not a defining characteristic of the work. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 17:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't necessary for a list's concept to be "defining" (that's a standard for categories, see WP:DEFINING, WP:NONDEFINING). And notwithstanding that, why do you think that setting is not generally defining for a work of fiction? Or are you saying that we simply need not be so precise as to index by year? postdlf (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Postdlf:It is that making a list of fictional works in a certain year is a trivial criteria and the items on the list are subjective, meaning they require inline citations to reliable sources which don't mention what year a fictional work takes place in. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 17:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - What makes you think that no works themselves nor secondary sources mention what year a work takes place in? There are definitely works that are vague on that point or not more specific than a decade or era, and so should not be included in such year-specific lists, but to give an easy example, I'm reading a novel right now about Napoleon's exile on St. Helena. No question there as far as the year the main events start, and this is going to be typical of historical fiction or alternative histories. And there are works like The Transformers: The Movie that start with express narration ("It is the year 2005..."). And critical reviews of works (which are going to exist for any notable work) are always going to describe setting. So let's avoid ipse dixit assertions that this information is necessarily subjective or not found in any source, as these sweeping overgeneralizations of yours aren't actually based on any evidence and are easily contradicted. postdlf (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have sources even been looked for here? Remember that AfD isn't cleanup, I would either keep the articles or source merge them back into the parent articles (years). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: WP:MUSTBESOURCES, please indicate what these sources are and where we can find them. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: per WP:BEFORE, the nom is required to indicate if they have searched for sources or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Knowledgekid87. It's not clear if KAP03 has done this; failure to meet GNG is argued but it is not explained how they've come to this conclusion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87, Finnusertop, and Postdlf: I have found a few sources for some of the years on the list. However, the articles seem to be mostly WP:OR. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 22:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for failing WP:LISTN – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything but merging them to the article on the real years. This was some time ago, but I did spin some of these off after a discussion with other users. The reason is simple: When our readers come to an article about a particular year, they are loking for information about events that actually happened that year, not what a dozen random works of fiction that coincidentally happen to be set in that year were about. Even in cases like 1984 (novel) or 2001: A Space Odyssey (novel) they are more culturally significant in the context of the year they were written or published than the year they happened to be set in, but in which the events depicted did not happen. I'm fine with it if consensus is that these shouldn't exist at all, the ones I created were made in the interest of compromise to keep them from cluttering up articles about reality, so I definitely feel that merging them into those articles would be a mistake. In nearly every case it sin't relevant to the real year in question. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I can't speak to every one of these but the initial discussion about recent year articles is at Wikipedia talk:Recent years/Archive 2#Video gamesin fiction section. I haven't particpated at RY in quite a while, but at the time it was a bit of a walled garden and rather unpleasant. Spinning these off instead of just removing them altogether was a compromise when those arguing to keep this content admitted it did not add to the reader's understanding of the actual year but wanted to keep it anyway because....vague reasons that seemed to be more about feelings than Wikipedia policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but consider that this type of breakdown would seem to be prime for categorization. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I'm amazed that we'd even consider keeping articles like these. The era (Middle Ages, Roaring 20s, etc.) in which a fictional work is set might be significant, but certainly not the specific year. And it's ten times worse when you're talking about future years, because the various works set in (for example) 2029 aren't really set in the same year, or even the same universe! Even in the most hard realistic science fiction, the year is just an arbitrary number picked out of the time frame in which the author thinks such events might occur. In other words, the works included in these lists have no real connection to each other at all, not even a trivial one.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Avoid main-articles becoming landfill sites for dumping information into them. J 1982 (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that would not be desirable and is in fact whay many of these were created to begin with, thsi is a fixable issue and this sort of argument is one that generally is not considered valid. if we have a consensus both that these artices should nto exist and that this content should not be in the main year articles (which was already established) then anyone seeing such additions can simply remove them. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Too many works that are set at the time of the publishing or close to it that it isn't that useful, as well as stories that are set in the present, only to have an epilogue of "X years later". Not to mention time travel ones that cover a multitude of times. However, the List of stories set in a future now past and List of films set in the future is useful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all- poorly sourced, overly specific and filled with WP:OR. These do not serve any kind of useful informative or navigational purpose. Definitely DO NOT merge them into the real year articles. Reyk _YO! 08:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete all of these. They don't meet GNG. Capitalismojo (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This is better suited for a category, or a certain type of fiction (i.e., novels, films, video games, etc). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we already have these cats ie. Category:2029 in fiction, do we need list articles that are essentially duplicates? do these meet WP:LISTN?, where are these "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Coolabahapple: Navigational lists aren't subject to the same notability guidelines. Granted, that makes them harder to assess, and it may be there's no consensus that navigating between articles on fiction set in a particular year has value to a reader, but they don't duplicate categories. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Rhododendrites for explanation. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - Largely unsourced mounds of Listcruft and Fancrust. Looking through these articles, its looking like most of them are chalk full of OR, as well, making any possible cleanup far more difficult than its worth. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose group nom per WP:NOTDUP, really. We have a vast category structure along the lines of Category:20th century in fiction, broken up by years. We have an equally vast Category:Works by setting, for geographical settings. There are advantages to lists as explained in our policy and these lists are a logical extension of a system we've created so readers can find articles.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how NOTDUP applies here. While some have argued that a categorization is better than having these lists I don't believe most, if any, delete comments argue that the existence of the categories is the primary reason these list should be deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? "Delete all but consider that this type of breakdown would seem to be prime for categorization"? Regardless, I don't see a reason to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests it as an alternative, not as a mutually exclusive option. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He suggests it as an alternative as part of a mutually exclusive option. But this is besides the point. Then just ignore the first sentence of my !vote. I go on to state -- and will gladly do so again -- that it makes no sense for us to have created such a vast category structure in order to situate fictional works both in time and place of setting, to help readers find articles, but that somehow only categories can do the job -- and these lists can't. WP:AOAL makes it clear how there are advantages to lists in this regard, and I'd ask editors to fully consider this if they're on the delete side of the debate -- however WP:IMPERFECT these lists might currently be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To continue this further, of course WP:LISTVERIFY does apply. And there's so much content that is currently unreferenced and as suggested above, is unlikely to be referenced soon. But to my knowledge no one has uncovered any serious, widespread inaccuracies in the content that has been added. Nothing so egregiously misleading as to necessitate nuking it. The worst that can be said, has been said, is that it is "cruft," "the year of setting doesn't matter, just the age", etc. But again, at the risk of being repetitive, it is not our place to tell readers how to browse the encyclopedia, and so Category:2007 in fiction and List of works of fiction set in 2007 function together. In fact, if kept, I'd suggest these lists be more prominently added to the category page, via ((catmore)), so as to get more eyeballs on the lists and hopefully, in time, improve them -- as of course we have WP:NODEADLINE (just an essay, but one which I agree with). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions, as a good number of the lists are set in the past, not future. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And at the risk of hogging this, I've been critical of the nominator the recent past for bringing lists to Afd while misunderstanding or misrepresenting policy. I simply don't buy his rationale of "WP:OR by being an article where no reliable published sources exist" (italics added). That's sort of preposterous. Are we being asked to accept that there are no reliable sources that state when fictional works take place -- all of them? Of course there are. He's trying to say that that no reliable sources "exist" on the list currently -- which is a very different thing. Now. I wanted to take a close look at the initial list he's brought here: List of works of fiction set in 2029 and yes it's a mess. The list creator has fatally confused "year of setting" with "year referenced within a work" -- which is a very different thing. I've done some clean up. I jumped down to List of works of fiction set in 1977. Some of the same problems. A bit more cleanup. But the list creator has simply based his list on which articles he finds in such categories as Category:Films set in 1977, it seems. Which only reinforces my feeling that Afd is not the place to resolve this, this is not a list-specific problem, and the nominator's enthusiasm for bring lists to Afd -- under any pretext -- shouldn't unduly sway us. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Shawn in Montreal and Rhododendrites. I especially oppose the inclusion of the 14th century article in this nomination. Having an article for an individual year may be too narrow, but an article about an entire century is a very different thing and should not be grouped with the articles about a specific year. Lepricavark (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- True, even if the by-year lists are deleted by consensus, the 14th century list is a very different matter and shouldn't have been bundled. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Shawn in Montreal: I have removed the 14th century list from the nomination and secondly why do we need list articles that group fictional works by what year they occur which is a trivial criteria, making the articles mentioned loosely related and if it is important it is mentioned in the target articles. If these articles are kept, I think that these articles should be merged into one article for a decade. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 17:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's good that you pulled 14th century -- it strengthens your group nom. And if I understand your comment correctly, the association with a year or place of setting should never be trivial, no. And that's a problem with a lot of the entries on these lists from what I can see, as well as the categories from which these list are partly based. I did prune a lot of entries from two I went through and more would certainly need to be done. In particular, we seem to have one editor there who's a fan of Dr. Who, and so any time the good doctor time-jumps to a stated year, for the purposes of the plot twist, in a given episode, that's been added as a "year of setting," which I for one don't believe it meaningfully is, based on what I see in the target article. What's worse: he's added redlinks to what are probably non-notable Dr. Who episodes , based entirely on WP:OR or data not in Wikipedia. But notable/defining characteristics are an issue for categories and lists generally, I don't see it as specific to this particular set. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All The subject(s) fails GNG. Navigation would be better done by categories. If there were secondary sources discussing how a particular year was depicted in fiction you could make a case to keep, but each of these lists are the result of someone vainly trying to turn a red link blue. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the setting is a notable part of fiction, and I don't see why notable part of the setting doesn't include year. I think lists of art/fiction by setting are interesting to our readers, are good for the project, and make suitable wikipedia articles. I want to point out that lists of the setting in fiction is clearly contentious (compare [2] to [3]), and I wonder if a more general discussion might be useful. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a weird area. For one, these lists mix works set in 1977 where 1977 is: a) the simply the contemporary period in which the work was produced and set b) when 1977 is a past year c) or older works in which in 1977 is a future of some kind, usually dystopian. I understand this is hardly supporting my own !vote but one has to acknowledge the issues around both these lists and categories, and it's why I agree that a more general discussion would be good. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 14 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. The current article is very similar to the one deleted at the previous deletion discussion, and if anything contains slightly less evidence of notability, certainly no more. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jolean Wejbe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

At best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Had a small supporting role on Big Love, and two other small roles in episodic tv. Does not meet WP:ACTOR, and searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G4 as the article has not addressed the previous reason for deletion and probably is sufficiently similar to the previous version. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 22:44, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gift of Men[edit]

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

Non-notable fancruft; fails WP:GNG with virtually no reliable coverage. Joshualouie711^talk 19:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only does this not meet the notability requirements, it is completely unsourced, and appears to be entirely OR and Synthesis. It seems like this is just some individual's personal essay about a random Tolkien topic. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be an editors interpretation of primary sources. Searches found blogs and fan sites that discuss this topic. No reliable sources found. Gab4gab (talk) 18:59, 14 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Nevé –selbert 23:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:NAMELIST, unnecessary dab page. --Nevé –selbert 19:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there might be considerable confusion when searching for his son or for the ship -jakeg13579 19:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakegrossman1 (talk • contribs)
Ah, but that is a partial title match. Do we have a Rutherford B. Hayes (disambiguation) or Rutherford Hayes (disambiguation)? No, despite there being USS President Hayes named after him. With respect to his son Ron Jr., he can easily be included in the hatnote we already have at Ronald Reagan.--Nevé –selbert 20:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless. Serves to list things named "Ronald Reagan". bd2412 T 20:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless and useful: serves to list things named "Ronald Reagan". Available for more things named "Ronald Reagan" to be added there in the future. I oppose churning of disambiguation pages. --do ncr am 21:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @BD2412: Per WP:PTM this page shouldn't exist. That's not opinion, that's policy. @Doncram: You seem to be advocating WP:RED.--Nevé–selbert 21:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ron" Reagan is noted in the article as formally being named "Ronald"; this is not a PTM situation. The USS Ronald Reagan can be found in sources being referred to as just "the Ronald Reagan" (see "Monday’s tours of the Ronald Reagan will take place between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m via Yokosuka’s Mikasa Park gate"; "The Constellation will now be replaced by the Ronald Reagan, which, in its own time, will know its share of heavy winds and rough seas"; "Meanwhile, the Ronald Reagan, which entered service in 2003, was engaged in the Operation Tomodachi relief mission", and therefore is properly included in a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Besides the junior and senior Reagan persons and besides the ship, there may be other things named Ronald Reagan which got removed previously from here because of disagreement about whether they were PTMs. It is apparent that people can disagree about whether something is a PTM that should be included or not. There are editors who are bent on removing marginal items, and then deleting the disambiguation page as a whole if the number of items on the page gets down to two, when page history and common sense show that other reasonable people know of many more items that are arguably items. The churning at the page level (trying to delete the whole disambiguation page) is bad. So is the churning at the item level. --do ncr am 04:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Proving the point that there might be other items to add, applicable to any disambiguation page, during this AFD Boleyn's edit added Ron Reagan (Florida representative) which is clearly valid. Sometimes with disambiguation pages there are shenanigans of deletionist removing items then deleting the page by administrative action without anyone else's review, or Speedy Deletion, or Prod if the Speedy fails, or then finally trying AFD. Here those shenanigans didn't happen as far as I can tell. But basically attempts to delete disambiguation pages are simply disruptive and IMO we ought to set up processes to stop them, e.g. perhaps impose bans on editors who have conducted shenanigans (not the case here). --do ncr am 20:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several legitimate dab entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are other uses listed that are ambiguous.,older ≠ wiser 00:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ships usually have a redirect from their name without the "USS", "HMS" etc prefix - see Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) for example; son would have a redirect from birth name as "firstname surname", already has one from longer form Ronald Prescott Reagan; so those two are certainly legitimate dab page entries. PamD 10:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 4 entries which clearly meet policy (Florida politician, President, his son and ship). The see also is really useful here too. Boleyn (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All items are plausible search terms. Ships are usually included in DAB without their prefix - not to mention his son. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn. Thanks Boleyn for adding Ron Reagan (Florida representative). I realise the necessity of such a disambiguation page now.--Nevé–selbert 21:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good, thank you, and then this AFD can be closed as there are no "Delete" votes. However it should not be seen as if the addition of just one item made the difference. Besides the fact that the 3 original items are valid, there are other likely "Ronald Reagan" items to be added in the future. For example films and paintings and biographical books, as suggested by contents of Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation), which PamD pointed to. In that vein, i just Googled and found my way to American Experience film "Reagan", which seems notable ...which turns out to have a Wikipedia article Reagan (film) which probably is a valid item for this disambiguation page. And there will likely be more. "There will likely be more items" is a valid argument for disambiguation pages in general. --do ncr am 21:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Neve-selbert, for withdrawing and for the many good edits you've been making to dabs lately. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:56, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Boss 'N' Hug Connection[edit]

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

WP:OR; Not an actual women's tag team recognized by WWE. Info in the article entirely consists of their own separate careers rather than the "tag team". Sekyaw (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sekyaw (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no such team. MPJ-DK 13:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fake... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
most likely Delete - I am not sure that this is an actual name, or if this is simply a place holder (such as Brenifer and Bradgelina). Kellymoat (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not fake, This is original. This is not an my idea, this is WWE.COM wikipedia their own work. Don't you know sasha banks and bayley, they already teamed as "The Boss 'N' Hug Connection" performing on WWE under their Raw Brand. This is for real. This is not a dream team, this is real team on currently works for WWE...Thank You... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.100.0 (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone implied that you created this in your head. But, rather, is it an official team name for an official team or just a term they are throwing around to fill a void. Kellymoat (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I already told to keep not to delete, You all are stupid idiots..., This is not fake once they are official team. And you just made the list..., Don't you have a brain and use it the brain for right time... Thank You... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.100.51 (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get a 2nd vote, and insulting the community members is a big no-no. Kellymoat (talk) 05:41, 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, after discounting the obvious meatpuppetry. MER-C 02:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Agrawal[edit]

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

Puff piece article. All about the company. Nothing about the man. Fails WP:BIO. All references are trade papers. scope_creep (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let this page stay. It can be improved from the current version, but looking at their company website it seems the topic fulfills Notability criteria. Vivek Dutta (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of secondary sources independent of the subject; the company's own website is not proof of notability Spiderone 19:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article lack independent reliable sources Samat lib (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service for unremarkable individuals. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I strongly support to keep this page up, references provided with this article are very trusted newspapers in India with very strong domain authority. From nowhere this article is looking like a resume, the article includes his early life and education, career, achievements awards, his stand for social cause. He is not unremarkable personal as we can see the awards he has received are from very renowned organisations like Fortune India, CNBC TV18, ICICI, Government of Rajasthan, Punjab National Bank, etc.--Ramendra.singh (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG - The article lacks reliable secundary sources that are specifically about the subject. The sources are either about the company, written by the company, or are not noteworthy. I did a google search and could not find any further sources. -- Taketa (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Taketa, Thanks for sharing your feedback for the article Sunil Agrawal. The references provided in the article are very trusted news channels. As he is Founder and Chairman of VGL Group, most of his awards and contributions for social causes are through VGL group only. Also, you can check this page is linked from three other Wikipedia pages which are the part of VGL group. You can check his interview by IndiaInfoline and his statement at The Economic Times which itself is a proof of notability. --Ramendra.singh (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lets keep this page Live. Most of the references provided in this article contains this person's statement or speech. After checking these references which are also the leading news channels in India like The Economic Times and NDTV, it seems this topic fulfills the notability criteria.--Pankajchauhan13 (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't know where to start but I think a lot of people dedicate their life in creating such an organisation which brings in happiness in others life. I believe he completely represents his company and that is why the article looks like it is talking more about the company. The references and awards come from few of the most trusted sources of information in news and finance world. I strongly support to keep this article to encourage such people who first think about mankind and then for themselves.--Aka kesar (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I went through the article and it very much says about the person and his work in the company. LC is a very famous shopping channel here in the United States. The references provided in the article like of (CNBC), (Economic Times) and (NDTV Profit) are very trusted news sites. So, I strongly believe we should keep this article at Wikipedia.Shariq.ahm (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: I see multiple accounts that expressed their opinion here as their first edit and make the same language mistakes. Please note WP:SID and WP:MEAT. This is not a vote and only arguments count, not numbers. Secondly all accounts suspected of socking can be treated as one person. Finally, all accounts are subject to any sanctions if necessary. This includes the original account. Please stop any attempts to influence this discussion outside arguments and improving the article. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vkdutta4u. MER-C 13:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Secondary sources are lacking. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:17, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creator Currency Octaves[edit]

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

The only reference that a Google search on the phrase finds is an interview with its creator, Duke Johnson, who appears to be the author of this article. As such, this is original research and has no independent notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources, and it smells like WP:SPAM, trying to promote this non-notable thing. South Nashua (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of WP:OR and WP:GNG. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 07:36, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Williams-Thomas[edit]

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

Puff piece. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising and the motivations shown here confirm it thus that's entirely enough for deleting as advertising in our own policies. SwisterTwister talk 21:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG as entirely lacking any reliable sources. That it's puffery is surely no accident. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material while also being spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:35, 14 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. Further general discussion can continue on whether the Bronze Wolf Award is sufficient on WT:BIO, but there is a clear consensus here, and there is also his work on Braille to consider. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley C. Dassanayake[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG as it relies solely on primary sources i.e. those related to scouting. There is no coverage in reliable, published secondary sources. A Google search for Kingsley C. Dassanayake returns 27 results most of which are mirrors of the Wikipedia article or unreliable scouting websites (Facebook, blogs). Kingsley C. Dassanayake returns 17 results, almost all unreliable. We don't know what this guy did for a living, when he was born, if he's still alive or even what the "C" stands for. Therefore the only question is whether the subject meets WP:ANYBIO by virtue of being awarded the Bronze Wolf Award. I don't believe Bronze Wolf Award constitutes a "well-known and significant award or honor" - it's just another award made by an organisation to its own members. Nothing special. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go. Strong keep as meets WP:ANYBIO per being a recipient of the Bronze Wolf Award.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You and the other keep voters haven't explained why Bronze Wolf Award counts as a "well-known and significant award or honor". Looking at the Bronze Wolf Award article, it relies almost exclusively on scouting related WP:PRIMARY sources. There is no significant coverage in multiple published reliable secondary sources. This suggests not only that it isn't a "well-known and significant award or honor" but also that the Bronze Wolf Award article itself fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on ANYBIO. The statements made by the original proposer make it valid for it to be considered a stub, but not to delete it.Naraht (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Migrate to Draft: namespace There is potential for an article to be developed, but the reference material that is here at present is insufficient in my view for to to remain as an article. As a Draft it will be given time and a competent critique when submitted for approval. I am not keen, however, on messages on my talk page encouraging me to ~~save~~improve an article because 'they' want to delete it. A Draft: namespace move seems to me to be a useful compromise. Fiddle Faddle 08:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent Nobody asked you to "save" anything, that would have been WP:CANVASSING; the specific word was "improve", as you had weighed in on the Lake View Park article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look, I struck through the mistaken word "save" almost at once, and prior to your note, above. Fiddle Faddle 15:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent If you look, you struck through "save" but left it for all to see. Cute little smear.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Meets point 1 of ANYBIO having been awarded the Bronze Wolf Award. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. obi2canibe, you stated, "I don't believe Bronze Wolf Award constitutes a "well-known and significant award or honor" - it's just another award made by an organisation to its own members." So it appears the heart of your assertion about the notability of this individual (and others like him) is whether the Bronze Wolf Award is itself notable.

If the organization was a no-name local charity with a few dozen members in a single town, this criticism might be valid. You may want to know that this award has only been given a few hundred times since 1935, during which hundreds of millions of individuals throughout the world have taken part in Scouting, and that the award recognizes selected individuals for a life-time of service to their community (through sponsoring organizations like churches, civic organizations, educational institutions, and others). Within this world-wide community in many dozens of countries, this person is notable under point 1 of ANYBIO. If you don't believe this is true, then dispute the notability of the Bronze Wolf Award itself. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 17:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 - Yes, as you and the other scouts haven't challenged the assertion that this article fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, the only question is whether it qualifies under WP:ANYBIO.

Point 2 - Thank you for explaining why you believe the Bronze Wolf Award is a well-known and significant award, something the other scouts voting keep have failed to do. I have to disagree with your assertion that it's notable because the organisation has "hundreds of millions" members. As you are aware Wikipedia doesn't give credence to numbers but to what can be verified - in this case whether there is coverage in multiple published reliable secondary sources. There isn't. Even a member of WP:SCOUT isn't convinced that Bronze Wolves are notable.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 22:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As any long-time WP editor knows, there are dozens if not hundreds of WP guidelines and standards, not all of which are in agreement. It's possible to fail an article on one criteria and support it based on another. The millions of past and present members of Scouting is not relevant to a discussion of whether WP is a democracy; it demonstrates that Scouting is a notable organization with support from civic groups, governments, churches, and hundreds of other organizations around the world. It is notable that from among these millions of members a few are selected to receive the highest award in Scouting. Within that world-wide organization (currently estimated to be 28 million members, which if it were a country, would make it the 46th largest country in the world), the Bronze Wolf Award is exemplary evidence of that person's achievements within that community. These individuals aren't usually newsmakers, however, making finding secondary and tertiary sources difficult. I don't believe there is a strong enough argument to delete these bios, and certainly the Keeps outnumber the Deletes. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. He got a Bronze Wolf Award FFS - those aren't handed out like sweeties. Only the Silver Wolf Award is a higher honour in Scouting. Endorse the arguments by User:Btphelps. (I haven't been involved in Scouting for over 50 years, but still know what being a Bronze Wolf means.)

See also Category:Recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award - 326 pages says something, does it not? Narky Blert (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, in the last 48 hours, there has been participation on the article by two or three Lankan IPs (2 are similar so unsure) and a registered Lankan editor. The new information is by and large unsourced, but it does two things. It fills in some important and interesting bio gaps, and it shows there is indeed something to be found of notability. obi2canibe has removed material posted a day ago-dirty pool during an AFD-you can wait for the afd to be over. ((cn)) cite-tagging is proper during debates, tag-bombing them to negate the fact that notability is getting a stronger case by the day is Wikipedia:Gaming the system, and I would be happy to put extra pairs of eyes on it should it continue. Lay off and let this debate run its natural course.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further, in the last 2 1/2 days, the information claimed to be your concern is being steadily answered. We do now know what this guy did for a living, when he was born, and even what the "C" stands for. Therefore I call into question your motives for removing such information, when simple cite-tagging would have accomplished enough, and I invite all others to likewise call into question your motives, especially after the snarky but basically sound advice timtrent posted on your talkpage.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I again caught tagbombing by obi2canibe trying to affect the afd by lying, as oldid=755946688 [4] of 22:16, December 20, 2016 rectified any supposed copyvio issues, and I again invite all others to likewise call into question obi2canibe's motives. Are you that desperate to smear an AfD that you are clearly losing?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards keep on this one. The discussion above seems to boil down to whether the award is notable enough to confer notability to the recipient. I would say that it is, given the nature of the award, the size of the organization, and the fact that the award does receive coverage in independent sources (here is a recent example I found). Yes, there are many gaps in the bio, but given the subject's circumstances (being active more than 40 years ago in a country where English is a minor language), it is not surprising that Google searches turn up little. Moving to draft space is a tempting compromise, but is unlikely to help in this case because it will effectively "hide" it from readers who may be able to provide the required biographical information that is not easy to find. Placing a call for help at the Sri Lankan wikiproject may not prove very fruitful either, as there are only 43 page watchers there. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with AtHomeIn神戸 that this discussion boils down to whether a Bronze Wolf awardee is notable. In my view, because it is an internal award within the Scouting organization, it isn't. Most editors here who have !voted to Keep are also connected with Scouting. I have argued elsewhere that a similar argument could be made with being awarded as an IBM fellow. It is equally prestigious but it is also an internal award within an organisation and notably, not all recipients are deemed notable enough for an article. Moving to draft space is an acceptable compromise. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a note, this and and IBM fellow aren't even close. #1 look at the number of blue links on each page. #2 there are many more IBM fellows given per year. #3 IBM is a lot smaller than the total of world-wide scouting. Hobit (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, #2 I filled most of the blue links during a free period. But #3 377,757 employees versus 28 million members, fair play.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although it certainly needs more work, yet he received a significant honor. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although on the surface this appears to be a debate leaning strongly toward keep (and certainly it is close to that consensus), I feel that too many of the "strong" and "speedy" qualified !votes are from those heavily invested in scouting and similar topics. That is not a problem. nor is this a criticism; However, I do feel that to establish a clear consensus, input from contributors and AFD regulars outside of the field would be welcome, else we end up with undue biases. As such, I am relisting the debate for additional input. KaisaL (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The general issue of the Bronze Wolf is being considered elsewhere at a request for comment. I want to point out that this AfD has given little or no attention to his contribution to the blind. His involvement with Braille in Sri Lanka and his involvement in international organisations for the blind most likely makes him notable, but we perhaps meed more sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep award and claims of work with the disabled/blind make me think he's almost certainly notable. Finding sources from Sri Lanka in that time period for someone involved in work like this is probably going to be a challenge (I'd tried). But the scouts would have had good reason to give such a rarely given award (given their size) to him. It's just going to be a matter of finding those sources. Hobit (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we have a good/proper reference that this person "invented" the Sinhalese Braille system? The references to date don't meet the criteria set out in WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find one. We have a former admin (who I think is unassociated with the scouts) who has added that elsewhere. But as I said above, finding sources for something like this, in this place and time is rough. Hobit (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, those who argue that the Bronze Wolf Award is not significant because it is a "private/internal" award for which only people involved in that organisatuon are eligible, should look to the Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross. They are also only "available" to members of the respective organisations - the armed forces of the US and UK respectively. Both of which, btw, have far fewer members than the Scouts. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In reply to Kintetsubuffalo's comments above, I am just following WP:V and removing unreferenced content. The only one gaming the system here is Kintetsubuffalo who is violating rules and at the same time claiming others are in violation of the same rules.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:44, 14 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elvin Polanco[edit]

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

Per source searches, not finding any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; does not meet WP:BASIC. The tone of the article also qualifies it for deletion per WP:NOTRESUME. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - music agents, promoter, producers, DJs, and the like are run of the mill, unless they get media scrutiny themselves. I don't see that notability here. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO, and unreadable to boot. Worst kind of spam :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 08:32, 14 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Williemgc[edit]

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

Not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources for this musician; does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NARTIST. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the same reason it was deleted the first time. Fails WP:MUSICBIO.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prabin Gautam[edit]

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

Puff piece article. No single points any info outside his business. Fails WP:BIO. Need real verifiable refs that can prove notability. scope_creep (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertisement — "He stands out from the crowd..."; "recognised as 'The Digital Entrepreneur'"; "He continues to refine and add to his knowledge"; and so on. I'm unsure about notability though. Laurdecl ^talk 06:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a promo resume press release. But that alone does need necessitate deletion, just a rewrite. It also needs to be wikified. Cannot find anything sufficient for notability though. Aoziwe (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if he were notable, this page is a torrid mess. Wikipedia is not a webhost or resume service. There is nothing in the page right now that shows how this person is notable - in fact he appears to be nothing more than a run of the mill business person. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 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 result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Kaito[edit]

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

Prod deleted by IP. Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Irn (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bio spam containing his upcoming events, subject fails WP:BASIC. — Sam Sailor 01:44, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miniminter (YouTuber)[edit]

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

No independent coverage in reliable sources indicating notability. Googling them brings up plenty of results, but they just seem to be their social media postings or other similar entries. Having 5 million subscribers seems to be enough of a claim to avoid speedy deletion, but reliable sources are still needed. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kellymoat (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT, per these sources [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. [14] AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AlessandroTiandelli333: The first two links do not work (for the sake of discussion they do now.) AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC) , and the others seem to be about a group they are involved with or associated with, and mention this person little if at all. If they are associated with a group, then this article could be merged with that of the group. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should do now, I think having a following as large as that should confer notability per WP:ENT on point #2 though. (Sometimes they just refer to him as Simon not miniminter.) AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've said that a large following may confer notability, but the sources from what I see don't indicate how this person is notable as an individual, just as part of a group. If it is the group that is notable, then this should be part of an article on the group. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that, @331dot, but one doesn't exist at the moment (only a brief mention at KSI (entertainer), it does mention this person as a original member). AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. Sorry, but asides from his affiliation to the group, Simon has no independent sources outlining his authority or notability in the trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.249.112 (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding strong enough secondary sources on this YouTuber. At best this link from MCVUK and that's not much. GamerPro64 04:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and possibly salt as this is going on the 5th or more creation at this point. They lacked the notability in 2015, 2016 and still lack the notability now. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Minter (miniminter), Miniminter Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Paul V. Nolan[edit]

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

New article reviewed with blp-prod added for lack of source, which was removed by editor. After discussion around notability criteria, notes that only point of interest is member of Tennessee state legislature from 1968-1970. But extensive search can't locate any verifiable references regarding this. All news site srepeat the obituary. He was a county commissioner, which is elected. Fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. scope_creep (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NPOL because he was a member of the Tennessee General Assembly. I have verified this - the source is: The Tennessean, Nashville, Saturday, May 23, 1970 - Page 9. I found this at Newspapers.com and can see a small excerpt. However, my basic membership does not allow me to read the entire article nor make a clipping of this newspaper. I can see that he is addressed as "State Rep. Paul Nolan". Even better, just found this [15] - there is historical information at the Tennessee government website. MB 06:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep That's good enough for me to establish notability. I could not find that page. I spent ages looking for some evidence. Good work MB. scope_creep (talk) 12:04, 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 procedural close. The article was speedy deleted by RHaworth per WP:A7. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afshinam[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:38, 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. It may be helpful to further clarify WP:NBOOK to indicate what kinds of reviews are considered acceptable, but consensus in this AfD is clear. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xone of Contention[edit]

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

This doesn't establish notability. There don't seem to be any reviews that I can see. Seems more suited to a list of novels unless there are some older print reviews. TTN (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. Disruptive and grossly inaccurate nomination. If the nominator "can't see" any reviews, it's because he didn't look (and therefore didn't comply with WP:BEFORE. The most cursory search turns up reviews in Publishers Weekly[16] and Library Journal (quoted here, [17], apparently too old for online archive). It was also on the Locus list of noteworthy releases for the month of its original publication and, as I recall, on various genre bestseller lists, including Locus, shortly thereafter. Even absent this level of coverage, there's no argument for deletion, since redirect targets are clear. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I missed a trivial little review blurb. That's just inexcusable. Your wikilawyering is completely justified and not at all overboard or biased. Not super familiar with the general threshold on what is considered a proper review for a book, but both of those are truly trivial, basically just a sentence each of actual content amounting to "it's a cute book for kids." Maybe others will consider that to be enough, but I hope that isn't the case. TTN (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not the sort of response one would expect from an honest, good faith editor. You couldn't miss the PW review if you had Googled the title. Your lack of honesty is disturbing and disruptive -- you are, after all, the same editor he repeatedly insisted he couldn't find critical commentary on George Orwell's fiction. Not being "super familiar with the general threshold on what is considered a proper review for a book" is pretty much an admission that you're disregarding existing consensus on the subject in favor of your own shallow preferences. Even the ultradeletionist Qworty admitted that PW reviews were major indications of notability [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Pope], and they've been cited in hundreds upon hundreds of deletion discussions. As @DGG pointed out here [18], such reviews are among the most significant and influential in the industry; they are important considerations in library purchases and bookstore stocking and promotion decisions. You just don't understand how publishing works. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sort of response due to someone who regularly insults people and results to wikilawyering every single chance he can get just because he disagrees with someone's opinion. Out of the last ten times you tried that on my AfDs, exactly how many times has it worked? You purposefully bring up old arguments and misinterpret them simply to try to paint me in a bad light. If I saw that review, I probably passed if off as some user-generated Goodreads-like site. If I made a mistake, big deal, certainly not anywhere near as bad as you make it out to be. I don't care about some other guy's opinion on it, and DGG clearly stated that they are suitable for an author or book series but may not be suitable for singular books. Not sure how either of those help your argument. TTN (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're pounding the table a lot for somebody who made false claims in their nomination statement and didn't make the slightest effort to comply with WP:BEFORE. Your accuracy rate is AFD nominations is barely 40% [19] (in contrast, mine is 87%); and yours would be even lower if redirects are discounted. That you defend your disregard of a review in the largest-circulation, widely respected magazine about the publishing industry by saying you thought it was "some user-generated Goodreads-like site" just underscores your self-acknowledged lack of WP:COMPETENCE in the area. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used the above links and found nothing particularly relevant. That the site itself is widespread doesn't change the triviality and brevity of the "review." I will definitely assert that such a review is ultimately worthless and provides no context to write a reception section. Both your links above simply deal with the notability of the authors so I don't think they provide any relevant opinions on the site's use in novel articles, and one actively says singular book articles are probably not something to be made based upon those. That mention of AfD statistics is completely random and I cannot even see why you would mention it. Considering that you seem to deal with BLP porn actors more than anything, it's not a surprise that it's different. To get an accurate percentage of mine, you would need to count all the merge results and see how many of the articles have been merged or redirected since, seeing as a lot of my AfDs are ultimately correct but get clogged up with busybodies like yourself who couldn't give a damn about the actual content being discussed. TTN (talk)

The fact that you argue that Publishers Weekly (which is a magazine with an online archive, not a "site") "provides no context to write a reception section" further demonstrates your lack of competence and good sense in dealing with the notability of books and authors. PW reviews have been cited in hundreds of prior AFDs. Consensus on this point is well-established.

Please do show any where an article on a book was fully established based on one of their reviews. I don't doubt they're used in articles as a sort of filler. Even if brief, they technically do provide some sort of perspective. Looking at some featured articles and good articles on recent-ish novels, I saw it used a couple times, but their best sellers lists were much more common. It's certainly not a go-to staple in terms of sourcing. If a few tiny, one paragraph reviews are all a book has going, it's really not something that can be called notable. TTN (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure how to do that fancy arrow thing that I see people do on here, but in any case I'm going to put my two cents in. So far there has not been any consensus that trade reviews or that short reviews in general cannot establish notability for a work. I've asked about this on a few occasions and I've also seen others ask this - there's never really been a clear consensus for or against this. The reason for this is that while some trades have longer reviews than others, enough to where they'd be considered reasonably indepth. In contrast, others are very short but the publication is considered to be fairly prestigious. The Horn Book Guide is one such publication, as they're pretty discriminate in what they review. (The book sourced in the HBG article is from 2002, which was from before the self-publishing business really exploded. It's also arguable that there's been an increase in publishing as a whole since then.) Booklist is another publication where they have a pretty good history, as it's the official publication of the American Library Association. Other places that do short reviews are places like Choice, which have a pretty good pedigree. (By contrast, Kirkus isn't considered as reliable anymore.) Now I personally try not to source an article using only trade reviews, but playing devil's advocate they are still considered to be reliable technically. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An admission that this "Seems more suited to a list of novels" indicates to me that this should have resulted in a merge proposal or a redirect rather than an AFD. Otherwise, this seems like a case of WP:IGNORINGATD. BOZ (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That one is certainly nonsensical considering merge and redirect outcomes are perfectly valid in AfD, and despite what people may say in attempts to wikilawyer BEFORE as some kind of policy, there is nothing wrong with taking an article to AfD with merge or redirecting in mind. In my mind, deletion followed by a new redirect is the most preferable outcome because it removes the ability for someone to easily resurrect the articles years later as with the mess of D&D articles, and nine times out of ten the content is not worth even merging. TTN (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Your cognitive dissonance is showing. If you're asserting that it's OK to take an article to AfD just because you think it should be merged or redirected, and that that somehow excuses your lack of any remote WP:BEFORE effort, well... Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - BOZ's comment is clearly unrelated to the above discussion. The idea that one must pursue every single avenue before even thinking about deletion is silly. BEFORE is a list of suggestions and nothing more. I think this should be deleted either way, so that doesn't particularly matter anyway. And no, I did a search for sources, but overlooked that trivial review above. I don't really care how notable the publisher may be, but the review is barely even a review. Maybe in the end the standard for sources for novels is much below everything else, but I sort of doubt it because nobody can give a clear "yes, it's a great source that should be used for all novels." As per DGG in the link above, it seems much more suited to author notability. It seems very likely that most series where the author is releasing up to twice per year for over ten years are not going to have notability established for each novel, but not the biggest deal if this AfD fails. TTN (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nomination, meets GNG per Hullabaloo. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, due to multiple reviews (apologies for almost verbatim quotes from reviews but this is probably necessary due to nominator's mischievous comment of "truly trivial, basically just a sentence each of actual content amounting to "it's a cute book for kids."") ie. Publishers Weekly - "The newest volume in Anthony's most popular series (Zombie Lover, etc.) is for truly dedicated Xanthropologists only--for it's filled not only with horrendous puns but with a maze of references to past books in the saga. .. Leaping from wordplay to wordplay and rapidly straining readers' patience with their marital troubles, .. Occasionally a bright scene, such as Pia and Edsel's visit to the Isle of Talents, is handled cleverly, reminding us of Anthony's ability. But these moments are outnumbered by sophomoric jokes about the Adult Conspiracy to keep teenagers from having sex and the power of women's panties to disturb males. The novel won't alienate the faithful, but neither will it convert unbelievers."[20], Library Journal - "The latest addition to Anthony's popular Xanth series takes on computers, chat rooms, and the web with the usual plethora of puns and slapstick humor. Purchase according to demand."[21], oh and look a 3rd review from BookList - "This newcomer to a long series could be called Xanth Meets the Neta heavily satiric version of the Net, of course, complete with "Macrohard" software, etc. .. The magical puzzles here are ingenious, the puns numerous (and frightful), the sex and gender relations as adolescent as usual, and a great deal of Xanth's history and characters turn up in Edsel and Pia's quest. Lurking amid all the fluff are some real wit and serious ethical questions."[22]. ps. i couldn't find anywhere on the above review pages that this is a "kids book" (btw the WorldCat entry doesn't either), as a member of "kids books" project would appreciate nominator explaining the relevence of "cute book for kids." comment to the afd? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but those seem like bottom of the barrel reviews. The relevance of the publication doesn't change that the quality is low. When the point is to churn out as many review blurbs as possible, it wouldn't surprise me if nobody actually reads what they're reviewing. Maybe I'm just looking at more recent 8-15 paragraph reviews and trying to place that standard on a time where paper reviews were still relevant. The Library Journal is definitely not something I would ever call a "review" though. The character articles I've seen on it so far gave me the same vibe as the Animorphs articles, so I just assumed. Though young adult would be the proper term for that, I guess. TTN (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for explanation, as someone with the attention span of a gnat:) i find these sorts of reviews more than adequate to assess the qualities of a book. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:55, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Rogers (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no reliable sources and searches found little. There is this book which has his name in a long list. Fails WP:NACTOR. Gab4gab (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - no significant acting credits, his film was a micro-budget production, and his co-authored book shows no reviews or media articles. He was also a model, but no reliable sources on that. Fails WP:NACTOR.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uttarakhand cricket team[edit]

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

Delete. Breaches WP:CRYSTAL. Non-notable team. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Jack | ^{talk page} 12:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jack. Mohammad Sally (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google doesn't really bring back anything of note. No problem recreating if they do indeed compete in Ranji Trophy next season. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ChunnuBhai (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability at the moment, but will become notable if it takes part in a recognised tournament. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. One of several Indian state sides muted to be getting first-class status in the near future. Until then, the team fails WP:CRIN. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably somebody read the Lodha Committee report and decided that they should make an article on the state team proposed in the report. Will merit an article if the team is formed but till then let us wait. Jupitus Smart 09:06, 14 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. Consensus to delete, and sole contributor has agreed to deletion. — Amakuru (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Ashes[edit]

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

Delete. This has no notability whatsoever. It is a strictly amateur, low-level "occasion" frequented by so-called "celebs", none of whom come remotely close to complying with WP:NCRIC or WP:CRIN. It is an example of creating an article for the sake of creating an article. See the tags applied to the article. Fails WP:INHERITORG too. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's subject has no notability whatsoever. Definitely should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajni Sharma (talk • contribs) 12:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not notable celebs involved? - errhh, I would have thought Hugh Jackman, Eric Idle, Mel Gibson, Ozzy Osbourne are notable?. They may not be notable to Americans, but they certainly are notable to people in Australia and the UK. The event attracts some big celebs to be involved and on it's board, it has been running for 7 years, and continues a tradition of English and Australian celebs playing cricket in Hollywood that went back to the 1940's. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They may be notable in the world of entertainment but not in the world of cricket and so this article fails WP:CRIN. As for the "tradition", my local club has a traditional match each season against another village a few miles up the road. The standards of play in that match are certainly higher than anything a bunch of actors could produce, but I don't think anyone would dream of creating a WP article about it. Please see WP:INHERITORG which rules that while an organisation or event may be notable in itself, its members or participants are not notable in terms of their membership or participation; the converse being that while individual members or participants may be notable in their own right, their membership or participation does not confer notability upon the organisation or event. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's obvious this wouldn't be important in the world of Professional cricket, and in terms of it being an important sporting event - obviously the level of players aren't very good. That's because it is a social friendly match, between British and Australia celebrities, with the level of celebrities involved, it's important in that context and as a cultural event, not in the level of professional cricketers involved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable team which doesn't play at first-class/List A/Twenty20 level, or of any historical significance. In short, it fails WP:CRIN. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching Google suggests it would barely pass WP:GNG with some passing mentions here and there. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, there aren't many mentions of it. I mainly created it because of it's social/cultural worth based on of the level of celebrities involved, and it had a national competition value to it, replicating the main ashes series. Not particularly attached to it, in any case. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin. Please note that Deathlibrarian is the creator of the article and he has effectively agreed with the AfD. Would you please terminate this case asap. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, I've placed a db-author tag on the article with a link to this discussion; this may speed things up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 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 Withdrawn by nominator

Mary Diana Dods[edit]

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

If this subject is notable, the article doesn't show how. Owen (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. Article has been significantly improved since nomination. Owen (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - It has been demonstrated that this person is in fact notable and that my original reasoning was false . AllanVolt (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AllanVolt: Per WP:JNN, what specifically makes the sources I have identified below not notable? TheMagikCow (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How is citing a 305-page biography published by a university press not showing how the subject is notable? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Owen Please see WP:ARTN. No sources is not grounds for deletion on notability. Incidentally, a 305 page university press book identifies, to me, clearly shows how this subject is very notable. Further to this another academic source [23] further backs up the claim to notability. These are very high quality sources, and definitely enough to meet the WP:BASIC criteria that are required. They are reliable, secondary and independent. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the several references that I have added to the article and the specific Romanticism and Sexuality article identified above, which are sufficient to demonstrate biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article should be expanded rather than deleted. The article may not be "finished", but no article on Wikipedia have to be; the can be expanded indefinitely. If an article does not show the value of the subject, than it should be expanded and not deleted. --Aciram (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her writings may not have been earthshaking, but her personal relationships were unusual for that period and her close friends appear to have included Mary Shelley and Jane Williams.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmcln1 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has been some recent work to improve the article since it was nominated for deletion. There are some interesting circumstances here. The published writings of this individual don't sound as if they are enough to pass standards of notability in their own right. And being friends with other interesting intellectuals isn't enough to establish notability. Of course, the more unusual details around this individual's life and the nature of their relationships only came to light within the last couple of decades, through the work of an academic who had studied Mary Shelley and then realised she had stumbled upon a mystery. A book was published by the academic and following this numerous people have drawn upon that research. On balance, Dods passes WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm glad this nomination has led to significant improvements to the article. Owen (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But there are better ways to solicit improvement than nominating for deletion, which should only be done of the basis of deletion policy. If every article that needed improvement was nominated for deletion then we would have literally millions of articles at WP:AFD, which would obviously overwhelm the process. At the time this was nominated, and before any improvements, notability was perfectly clear. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@86.17.222.157: Comment. Nonsense, at the time of nomination the article had existed for three years without having grown beyond three sentences in length. It lacked any links to any online sources and was without any inline citations. So, at the point at which it was nominated, notability was certainly very far from being "perfectly clear". While WP:BEFORE is important, don't pretend that the article appeared to be anything other than a stub that was begging significant questions. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not nonsense to point out that at the time of nomination this article cited a 305-page biography of the subject published by a University press, and that that makes notability perfectly clear. Such a source is many times better than any online source, as this is an encyclopedia, not an Internet mirror. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@86.17.222.157: No, your contribution at the start of this discussion consisted only of a rhetorical question which did nothing to explore what criteria might be used to determine in what way the subject of the article might be judged to be notable. It is not sufficient to presume that a person is notabile on the basis that a book exists that includes the name of that person within its title. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria that might used to determine in what way the subject of the article might be judged to be notable are spelt out at WP:GNG, so there was no need to repeat them here. Please stop digging. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@86.17.222.157: Again, I would encourage you to use AfD discussions to explore what evidence is available, and to consider what criteria a subject might meet, not simply to sniff at other editors that seek this information. Checking is an important part of the AfD process. While there may be several editors stepping forward to defend the subject of the article after it was listed, your statement about notability being "perfectly clear" at the time of nomination is unsubstantiated and I have explained why this is the case. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have substantiated that statement more than once above. Please feel free to have the last word here, because I have no further interest in discussing this with someone who refuses to recognise that substantiation. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody non-involved snow close this? It is now clear to all that the subject is notable. Or would Owen be prepared to withdraw this nomination? TheMagikCow (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Owen, for drawing attention to this page and so encouraging some of us to make something of it. Bmcln1 (talk) 18:44, 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. Not clear where to merge/redirect the material. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voluptuous Panic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still fails NMUSIC. First AFD was closed as no consensus. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Icicles in summary form. I couldn't find significant coverage of this band or any other indication that an article is justified, but worth a mention in the context of the singer's other band, as long as that article survives. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To recap arguments made in the previous AFD, Devault and Bowe’s individual prominence passes WP:MUSICBIO #6, while the score they performed for the Emmy-nominated, BEA Award-winning documentary mentioned passes #10. Missjastersgarden (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 08:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Notability is not inherited. This project has to stand on its own. The material is all self-released under Danish Crisis Records. None of it has charted. The duo rarely tours. The film in question was made by students and does not appear to be on general release. This is a side-project by DeVault and it should be merged after a detailed copyedit to avoid duplication. Karst (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Except Death of an Imam was not a student film. The director was not a student, nor were two of the three producers (and while Bowe was a doctoral student, he was also full-time faculty elsewhere and had a long-time journalism career by that point): http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2011/msu-documentary-receives-international-recognition/. The Emmy nomination was not in a student film category, and the film has screened at multiple film festivals: http://www.muslimsubjects.org/deathofanimam/about-2/ Missjastersgarden (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Does not pass WP:MUSIC#6. Bowe's (questionable) notability is not as a musician. Devault is not Independently notable, has no notability outside of the Icicles. Any claim of passing #10 would be best covered in an article on Death of an Imam it that film was truly notable, it's just a regional emmy. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 14 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Go Dreamworld[edit]

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

See also Hot Go Dreamworld, Hot Go Park, and Hot Go Spring Paradise, three promotional articles for theme parks that have not yet opened. Google search shows no independent coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently intended as a combo AFD, as the second and third-mentioned have been tagged for AFD with link to here (although this AFD maybe was not formatted perfectly at first). So anyhow the following related pages are also nominated:

and check also:

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

Comment The nomination seems to be incorrect in asserting that all three theme parks do not exist. The second one seems to have been open since 2014. Its article includes reference that shows photo of a park ride and mentions 2014.--do ncr am 20:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although some tagging and regular editing could be done and I wouldn't necessarily oppose the three being merged. However at least one of them does in fact exist, and theme parks in general seem fairly obviously notable (as public attractions). --do ncr am 20:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searching on Hot Go Park yields December 2015 LA Times article confirming its existence (with a rare-in-China wooden roller coaster) as a "year old" park, and its growth (new roller coaster coming). And there's this linked LA Times article also from December 2015 that I think has more, but I just hit an access cutoff, and there's this September 2015 LA Times article. And I don't know about "hospitality.net" in general as a source, but it covers expected January 2017 opening of a big hotel at the theme park. --do ncr am 21:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 08:07, 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. Tone 19:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tilen Grah[edit]

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

BLP Article which fails WP:BIO. Zero notability. scope_creep (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (cited in the article) As mentioned in the article, he has also received "a well-known and significant award or honor". --Eleassar ^{my talk} 03:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly non-notable -- yet, anyway. Perhaps it's just too soon. Quis separabit? 23:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 08:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- weakly sourced and spammy: "...appeared in many magazines he had done many interviews...". Clearly WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has received "an award that is worldwide known and respected" . He was also represented in one of the worlds most known brands in magazines "Cosmopolitan" (cited in references). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShooWarm (talk • contribs) 17:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title won is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the award that is worldwide and well known? scope_creep (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the award is Mr Slovenia, then it is not notable. Turning up and getting a prize is not notable. scope_creep (talk) 10:11, 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 keep. There is a tendency to dismiss sources for being WP:OSO. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Clark[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC. PROD was removed with the comment that Clark meets point 2. of WP:AUTHOR "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." but the book is "Camp Fire Training for Girls" and I'm pretty sure there's nothing new in terms of concept, theory or technique about girls lighting campfires. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To what end are you targeting Scouting and peripheral articles? Are you now going to put all of these up for deletion? What is the obsession for you?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proof that this author or her book originated some significant new thing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply}

here 15:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Surely her claim to notability is not about that book, but as it says in the first sentence, "was the author of the first woodcraft book for girls and co-founder of the Kibbo Kift". I think we all need to read the book before deciding that it is about lighting campfires. The Kibbo Kift was an important youth organisation that eventually became the Woodcraft Folk. I recall seeing a new book on the Kibbo Kift earlier this year, so we need to see what that says about Ruth Clark. So I do not think that this AfD should be rushed over the holiday season for most of us. For example, I am "out bush" with a poor internet connection and a long way from a library that might have either book. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sign of significant notability that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Speedy deletion. Scorpion293 (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The last thing we should be considering over the holiday period is speedy deletion. The article on Kibbo Kift says that Ruth Clark "led a Camp Fire Girls group at the Garden School run by the Theosophical Educational Trust in St John’s Wood". The book "Camp Fire Training for Girls" is therefore most likely to be about woodcraft and not lighting camp fires. The book I mention above, I think, is the one that is the first reference in the article on Kibbo Kift. This should be studied by someone to see what it says about her. I am 150 km from a decent library or bookshop so I can not do that. So, keep for now and not rush things over the Christmas/New year period. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign that her work is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bduke's rationale given nom's questionable timing, and because it passes Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals point 2, namely that it was not singular, but rare enough 100 years ago, to have girls in on the whole outdoors movement.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have ordered the book on the Kibbo Kift and will read it and report back when I receive it. If it says anything about Ruth Clark, it will be a good source as it is clearly a scholarly book independent of the organisation and the people involved. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference that is now on the woodcraft book, makes it clear that it is a significant book on woodcraft and not a book about lighting camp fires. I think this is now a clear keep. I will still add material from the book when it arrives. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus appears split on this article. -- Dane ^talk 08:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 08:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Co-founder of a notable organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although the article states she was a co-founder, the source does not back up the statement and the Kibbo Kift article does not list Clark as a founder. Other sources naming her as a co-founder appear to have taken their content from Wikipedia. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I ran her name through books google search. She shows up very well in period periodicals. But also in books about the period, of which I just added one to the article. Beware of WP:SYSTEMIC bias towards Presentism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:04, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Tribune[edit]

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

Fails GNG. No references in article, a search finds no RS references outside of article. DarjeelingTea (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator comments: I have added an external reference / external link along with an infobox. Additional references will be added during the current editing process in the next 3-4 days. Is there any additional item you have in mind or are changes satisfactory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eehsani (talk • contribs) 09:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eehsani - per WP:WEBCRIT, for a website to have an entry on Wikipedia it needs to have:

been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, or,
won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization

The sources you currently list (fiction books that include one-sentence quotes from Mystery Tribune on their front-matter reviews pages) are not sources about which Mystery Tribune is the subject, I'm afraid. However, others may have a different opinion, to which I'll defer. DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of notability. Speedy Deletion. Scorpion293 (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 08:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At this point in time there is nothing out there that would show notability for this online magazine. Since it's possible that they might read this, I'd like to ask that they not take this badly, as most media outlets - especially website based outlets - do not pass this criteria. The reason for this is that you need coverage that is independent of the magazine and anyone who is affiliated with them, which is hard to come by since most of the places that Wikipedia would see as reliable (newspapers, major web outlets like Publisher's Weekly, and academic sources) are unlikely to cover someone they might see as "competition". Even if that's not a factor, there are always more companies/websites than they can cover so the reliable sources tend to be very selective. It can take decades before something can get enough coverage to justify inclusion.

Now as an aside, something I really want to recommend is that you clarify your association with your partnering companies. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia, more just something I'm saying as a reader. Seeing that someone is partnered with major publishing houses tends to make me very leery, as us readers are used to people who are/were just positive review mills for publishing companies. (cough*Harriet Klausner*cough) You need to put down some sort of disclosure somewhere about how you get your review copies and that your reviews are honest. Be careful though, because even if you have this, if you only or predominantly put out positive reviews then you will still be seen as a positive review mill. This isn't meant as an insult, just that as a reader who talks with other readers we have grown very skeptical of stuff like this and book blurbs in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:01, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Boy Records (Record Label)[edit]

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

Fairly minor record label with single source. Can't see how they are notable. scope_creep (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC) scope_creep (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of significant notability or impact in the music industry. Speedy deletion. Scorpion293 (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 08:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable at all and has an air of the promotional. None of the artist on the roster are of note. Karst (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unreliably sourced spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no credible claims of significance here. No notable artists or releases or coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:52, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Stedman[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Contrary to what some editors think, appearing in a notable show/movie does not assign notability. reddogsix (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - horrendously written ("all things mommy") BLP by an SPA. Being on a TV show does not automatically convey notability. It's not entirely clear that this show she was in ever even actually aired, since the network it was on no longer exists as a broadcast TV network. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 08:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In agreement with points already made AllanVolt (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NACTOR. Several of her roles were in obscure children's programs. Rogermx (talk) 21:17, 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. After several weeks, a consensus for deletion has formed (and is growing more definitive by the hour). – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominica at the 2010 Commonwealth Games[edit]

Dominica at the 2010 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Bahamas at the 2010 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Falkland Islands at the 2002 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lesotho at the 2010 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sierra Leone at the 2010 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tanzania at the 2010 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2010 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Turks and Caicos Islands at the 2010 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kiribati at the 2010 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gibraltar at the 2006 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kiribati at the 2006 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2006 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saint Lucia at the 2006 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is no information on these article, that cannot be found on the 2010 Commonwealth Games article. A redirect would not be helpful either, as other nation articles have content on them. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to 2010 Commonwealth Games. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural: I added some 8 similar articles to this AfD. 103.6.159.74 (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While I generally agree with arguments in favor of delete, I feel the best solution would be to merge the per-country-per-year articles into per-country articles (Dominica at the Commonwealth Games, etc.). GregorB (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. While these articles would be useful if they had more information, if they're going to be one-line stubs indefinitely they might as well be merged to a more general article for now. The titles should be kept regardless, though. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They can be expanded. While Dominica at the Commonwealth Games is a one-liner, it is surprising to see that Dominica at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games is a full articele that was once featured as as DYK. 103.6.159.89 (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment at least some articles (I did a small sample) are not tagged pointing to this discussion. I ask @Sportsfan 1234: to tag them, and ask to pace their nominations for deletion which are counting up from a thousand in a week or so. I also ask admins assessing this discussion to count the 7 day discussion period starting only after all articles are tagged. Nabla (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All articles in this discussion have been tagged now. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Articles with meaningless statistics that will likely never be looked at. Laurdecl ^talk 09:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The statistics are useful, but only in a single article. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the main articles, preserve info, avoid multiple stubs. Montanabw^(talk) 08:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero information or content provided by these pages, so no merge is necessary. Just seems like an attempt by an editor to create lots of pages. Clearly unnecessary, as the fact that these countries attended the Commonwealth games is already covered on the main Commonwealth page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Normally, I'd be looking for a reason to invoke WP:ATD, but I looked at every one of these; not one had any useful content, so there's nothing to merge, and the titles aren't even useful search terms, so redirects seem kind of pointless (but, redirects are cheap, so if somebody really wants the redirects, meh). -- RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left to dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/repurpose all into by-country articles. Strong agreement that these by-country-by-year articles are not appropriate, with a general consensus that merging and standardizing them into by-country articles is a better course of action than outright deletion. Editors have expressed a willingness to undertake this daunting task (ping XyZAn!), but if efforts are not underway within a reasonable period of time, the articles should be re-nominated. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina at the 2015 UCI Track Cycling World Championships[edit]

Nations at the xxx pages are usually reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. This one focuses on just one sport. Also quoting Peter Rehse, from another similar AFD [24], "they are all a rehash of a single source. National results for events that are borderline notable themselves. Even there there is nothing demonstrating that [the country] performed anywhere near notable." Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - it is an example of proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left for dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Sportsfan 1234, it would help to know how comprehensive this nomination is meant to be. As far as you know, does it include every single "[County] at the [Year] UCI Track Cycling World Championships" article? No complaint if you missed one or several by accident, of course. The point is whether you (a) are trying to get them all deleted, (b) believe that some should stay, (c) nominated just these ones to test the water, or (d) something else. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend, this list is meant to be an exhaustive one. I am pretty sure all of them are listed here. Hopefully there isn't any missing (there shouldn't be). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This can now be treated as an attempt to trash the whole collection. If this is closed as "delete", and if you missed one or two, those ones can be deleted too (even though they weren't included here) unless they're significantly different from the rest in quality, size, etc. Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. While I generally agree with arguments in favor of delete, I feel the best solution would be to merge the per-country-per-year articles into per-country articles (Argentina at the UCI Track Cycling World Championships, etc.). GregorB (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support GregorB's proposal. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GregorB ([[User talk

comment at least some articles (I did a small sample) are not tagged pointing to this discussion. I ask @Sportsfan 1234: to tag them, and ask to pace their nominations for deletion which are counting up from a thousand in a week or so. I also ask admins assessing this discussion to count the 7 day discussion period starting only after all articles are tagged. Nabla (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All articles in this discussion have been tagged now. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Many of the nominated articles were not tagged until very late in the discussion period. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

1) The nominator says events that are borderline notable themselves, well the event meets WP:NCYC

2) As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France at the 2014 European Athletics Championships.

3) The nominator says Nations at the xxx pages are usually reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. But the same kind of series are made for the Category:Nations at the European Athletics Championships and Category:Nations at the World Championships in Athletics. These events have the same notability standard.

4) Such pages where discussed at the Cycling Wikiproject, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 12#Country pages for the UCI Road World championships. Lugnuts, XyZAn and Buzzards-Watch Me Work joined the discussion and nobody was against.

or Renaming: It might be better to rename all such pages into like 2015 in Dutch track cycling, 2015 in French track cycling etc.. (Note that merging into the national pages is difficult as there are already pages named Netherlands at the UCI Track Cycling World Championships, Australia at the UCI Track Cycling World Championships. )

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per GregorB, standardise to [Country] at [Competition], this is also something I brought up at WT:CYC XyZAn (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per GregorB. Should be {country} at the {sporting event}, add specific history as notable.Timtempleton (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Renata and per the other related discussions. People in favour of merging should ask themselves if they are willing to do it. Laurdecl ^talk 09:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Laurdecl, yes I would be.. XyZAn (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @XyZAn: Every single one of these? If you're serious then I change to Merge and you deserve an award. Laurdecl ^talk 02:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Laurdecl: Yup, tbh I don't see it as a massive task, I'd probably aim to do a few countries a night so all in all I think I could have the content merged within a couple of weeks and redirects placed on the above articles. I'm sure I could recruit a number of WP:CYC members too. XyZAn (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above. Montanabw^(talk) 08:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality pages that just reproduce race results from the UCI website. Not encyclopedic content that is indiscriminate and no hope of ever being turned into an actual Wikipedia article with context and explanation. This is the definition of pure trivia. FuriouslySerene (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have argued above, these pages are a sort of cruft, creating a proliferation of pages that essentially perform the function of a database, which Wikipedia is not. This is true of XXX at YYY games pages in general, but it is especially true for a very specific single-discipline sport. Vanamonde (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We have a strong consensus that these articles shouldn't exist as stand-alone pages due to notability and WP:NOT concerns. What's less certain is whether the content should be deleted outright or merged into broader by-country articles. Since most of those articles don't currently exist, and there's no evidence that efforts to create them are underway, we'll do it like this: all articles are deleted, but will be individually restored upon request to allow for merging and redirecting if/when the appropriate framework is put in place. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus at the 2016 World Speed Skating Championships[edit]

Nations at the xxx pages are usually reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. This one focuses on just one sport. Also quoting Peter Rehse, from another similar AFD [25], "they are all a rehash of a single source. National results for events that are borderline notable themselves. Even there there is nothing demonstrating that [the country] performed anywhere near notable." Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - it is an example of proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left for dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While I generally agree with arguments in favor of delete, I feel the best solution would be to merge the per-country-per-year articles into per-country articles (Belarus at the World Speed Skating Championships, etc.). GregorB (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. A lot of those do not exist. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they don't. However, every merge requires an extra amount of work. The real question is: should those articles exist? I don't see why not, given that the content is there already. GregorB (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GregorB, I would question general notability of such articles. Would you be able to find sources (not rehashes of result tables) for, say, Italy at the World Speed Skating Championships? Renata (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renata, if the articles in Category:World Speed Skating Championships are generally sourced - at any rate they should be - then covering Italy at the World Speed Skating Championships shouldn't be a problem. Essentially the same as e.g. Italy at the World Championships in Athletics - a rehash of the result tables, if you will. GregorB (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GregorB: They are usually sourced to result tables. Which is my point -- the coverage for many of these events does not extend beyond statistics and result tables. You could not write a referenced article in prose on these events. Which is an indication that the topic is not notable. You can find, for example, plenty of press coverage on Olympics and you could write prose articles on [nation] at [year] Olympics, but that is not the case with things like Speed Skating Championship. Renata (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renata: but if it's not possible to write a referenced prose article on this topic, what about e.g. 2015 World Single Distance Speed Skating Championships? Articles on individual editions either: a) are themselves lacking prose (true in this particular case), or b) have or could have prose, but it would typically describe venues, organization, or present some other circumstantial information which is non-sporting in nature. I'd say articles without prose may be notable, as prose is just one way of presenting information. There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of competition articles without prose, and even if it existed, it wouldn't significantly enhance the article's value for the reader. GregorB (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Support GregorB's proposal. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment at least some articles (I did a small sample) are not tagged pointing to this discussion. I ask @Sportsfan 1234: to tag them, and ask to pace their nominations for deletion which are counting up from a thousand in a week or so. I also ask admins assessing this discussion to count the 7 day discussion period starting only after all articles are tagged. Nabla (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All articles in this discussion have been tagged now. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the nominated articles were not tagged until very late in the discussion period. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

1) The nominator says events that are borderline notable themselves, well the event are all the main world speed skating championships

2) As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France at the 2014 European Athletics Championships. (Note that the European Athletics Championships are not listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items)

3) THe nominator says Nations at the xxx pages are usually reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. But the same kind of series are made for the Category:Nations at the European Athletics Championships and Category:Nations at the World Championships in Athletics. These events have the same notability standard.

4) It's not just about one championships in one year, it's about all the 3 world championships in that year. It's a great way having combined the different World Championships results of every nation.

5) The pages where discussed at the Speed Skating Wikiproject, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Speed Skating#Nation pages.

or Renaming, as also per Migrant at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Speed Skating#Nation pages: It might be better to rename all such pages into like 2015 in Dutch speed skating, so also "new national records and maybe elections of the national related Speed skating main association like KNSB in Holland, NSA in Norway, DSU in Denmark and so on" can be added.

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Should be {country} at the {sporting event}, add specific history as notable.Timtempleton (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These are part of Sander.v.Ginkel's mass, automated addition of over 18,000 articles that were riddled with errors - flush the lot. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming or alternatively Keep as per No. 5) in Sander.v.Ginkels post per 13:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC). PS. There are actually 4 World Championships in speed skating long track:[reply]

1) Allround

2) Sprint

3) Single distances with teams and mass start

4) Junior worlds including allround, single distances and teams

And adding to that there is a new structure at the european championships too with adding the sprint-tournament alongside the allround every odd year and only single distances, team and mass start events every even year. Best regards Migrant (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as outlined in the closed related AfDs. Nothing but large amounts of statistics that likely no-one will every look at. Laurdecl ^talk 09:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Merge' and redirect per GregorB. Montanabw^(talk) 08:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality pages that just reproduce race results from the USI website. Non-encyclopedic content that is indiscriminate and no hope of ever being turned into an actual article with context and explanation. This is the definition of pure trivia that is best left for other websites. FuriouslySerene (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR. Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 15 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 Evolution (Sabrina Carpenter album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Purpose (song)[edit]

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

Almost no WP:RS. Mostly social media (tweets, Vevo, etc.) and one RS doesn't even mention song in passing. Searches don't turn up any significant coverage either. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Twitter Billboard chart is not notable. Fails the criteria under WP:NSONG. Karst (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Evolution (Sabrina Carpenter album) where this single is mentioned. Fails WP:NSONG given the sources mentioned above. I found nothing helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 23:18, 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. Suggest moving to a less awkward title. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of computer security hacker history[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is an indiscriminate list of hacks, with no set criteria for what belongs and what does not. It is a tribute page, made up of original research and synthesis, listing the various accomplishments of hackers and groups of hackers. It is a spot where any hacker who makes the news can boast of their accomplishments, despite not being worthy of a mention anywhere else in our fine encyclopedia. Prior to 2000 the list is somewhat interesting, but after that it turns to crap. It does not belong in Wikipedia. If these hacks are truly amazing and world-altering, they can have their own article.

Perhaps once upon a time this list was useful, but now it is just an indiscriminate list, with no criteria for inclusion, and no obvious way to establish such criteria.

Delete. Brad v 05:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN. Apart from the sources in the article such as the Washington Post, there are plenty more out there such as Cybercrime and Digital Forensics: An Introduction. Andrew D. (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's notable enough, and while a Google Book search will prove anything is covered in detail, this is a topic worth saving on this occasion. It could be vastly improved, but it appears to be very far from an orphan which means that from an encyclopedic perspective, it's proved its value already. And with 200 to 500 page views per day, despite its woeful condition, it's certainly of use to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a great article for research and helps to educate the public as to vulnerability of anything stored on an internet-capable computer. Government agencies are already making copies of emails and text messages - kind of invisible hacking. Though not well structured - this is a thought provoking article. Wik will lose me as a donor if they delete it. We need to understand that for every visible hack there are likely thousands that do not get detected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.219.109 (talk) 17:06, January 8, 2017‎ (UTC) — 99.225.219.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete or at least move to a less nonsensical title The number of views does not show notability. Whether or not there is information in sources about this vague idea, it is not an encyclopedic topic; it is not a well-defined subject for an article. The point of Wikipedia is not to "educate the public as to vulnerability of anything stored on an internet-capable computer" or to be "thought-provoking", and the claims that this article does those imply that it isn't written neutrally. KSFT ^(t|c) 19:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete or move" are almost diametrically opposing perspectives, I suggest you think again about this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have two separate opinions: I think that the article should be deleted because of its topic, as I explained above, and I think that the current title doesn't make sense. It looks like it probably isn't going to be deleted, so I mentioned my concerns about the title in the hope that it would be moved even if it isn't deleted. I do think that I could have been clearer about that. KSFT ^(t|c) 21:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN, there is clearly some interest, and the older material is not contentious. Some work on newer "hacks" would be beneficial, though, as the assortment is close to random. Bill Martin (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mr Martin, although truly un-notable mentions that don't get onto news at all alone must be purged. 185.89.218.231 (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC) — 185.89.218.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Fairweather[edit]

non-notable person. article was prodded, but someone removed the prod. the prod was reinserted, but prod policy is that if a prod is removed from an article, it can't be put back on. Voortle (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clearly fails GNG. Notability is not inherited. Pure longevity fanfluff. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG. This comes under WP:INVALIDBIO and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whats been said above Layla ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 15:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage insufficient to meet WP:N. Can be covered in his entirety in Violet Brown's article. Canadian Paul 21:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete This is interesting information to know that Harold Fairweather is the oldest living person with a living parent. One of the goals of Wikipedia is to include breadth and depth, and to be one of the world's largest encyclopedia's in the world. So, I think this page on Harold Fairweather should be kept. Further information should be added about Harold Fairweather to make this a more complete page on Wikipedia, which will benefit the knowledge of readers of the this page. FranklinManaway (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)FranklinManaway — FranklinManaway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please read WP:INTERESTING and WP:INVALIDBIO. Pretty much sums up why this article should be deleted. This article doesn't come close to passing the notability guidelines either and there is nothing to say about him other than the trivia that he is the oldest living person with a parent and that is already covered in Violet Brown's article. I also removed your duplicate vote. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is important at the same time to keep in mind Wikipedia's goals of increasing breadth and depth. There is more information about Harold Fairweather beyond that he is the oldest living person with a parent. A lot more to know about him. It just hasn't been put on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.3.85 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC) — 67.2.3.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gets there on the basic of GNG alone. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gangubai Nivrutti Bhambure[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Only claim to fame is she is the "oldest sarpanch" which is not a criteria for inclusion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local elected official.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 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 08:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Village officials would certainly not pass WP:NPOL but articles in India Times, India Today, and The Indian Express count to the WP:GNG.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely. Well described by Eggishorn. I've double checked each source, and this qualifies on GNG. Lourdes 06:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG Spiderone 14:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sportsfan. Which ones of the multiple sources are you challenging? Lourdes 04:56, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Amateur Football Association[edit]

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

Defunct amateur football league that never got significant coverage by reliable sources. Can't see anything in WP:CORP or WP:NSPORTS that would help pass it either. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This former amateur sports league is not notable, and never was. I too, searched for sources and found nothing if significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete seems promotional in nature rather than a cited article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:57, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deathsaurus[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. The singular "top 12" list is insufficient on its own. TTN (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single listicle in WP:RS does not confer notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An especially minor Transformers character with nothing in the way of sources that denotes any sort of notability. And no, a single, half-paragraph length humor entry does not help it meet the GNG. At the very least, a Redirect to List of Decepticons can be possible, but it certainly should not be preserved as a stand alone article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:43, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Ujala[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable short story. CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meri ujala is a notable story in Pakistan i know its in urdu language thats why not notable in world.here is the link of this story

Meri ujala on my official site

Sohni digest online — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superstar786 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Hi Superstar786, it would be great if you could provide some reliable references to show this is notable, they don't need to be in english (a translation would be helpful though:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coolabahapple Meri ujala is a great story written by Haseeb Ashraf it is about a aunt who killed her own niece with black magic it is very popular in Pakistan i has 3 hard copies of Meri ujala and it is also publish online on Facebook,Haseeb Ashraf Personal blog, and sohni digest online site for novels.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superstar786 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is an Urdu-language story with mostly Urdu-language sources (as it appears) is it in the Urdu Wikipedia? If not, wouldn't that be the place to start? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes Meri ujala is a story in urdu language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superstar786 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is clear now that this is a non-notable short story recently published in a local press in a non-English language. Start the article on ur.wikipedia.org/wiki (assuming it isn't there already) and if it gains enough notability, then bring it here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 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 Phytogenics. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Botanical additives[edit]

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

This article is based on two assumptions for which there is little or no accepted evidence or science-based practice: 1) that any of these botanical sources are used as additives in any significant volume; and 2) that such additives would have any biological effect in vivo. Little work has been done on the article over recent years and most of the sources are out of date and not solid per WP:SCIRS. There is a 3-year old proposal for merger with Phytochemical but such a merger would add nothing to the Phytochemical article. Zefr (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination really says it all. The article does not present any evidence that the listed botanicals are in fact used as feed additives. The author of the page appears to have no knowledge of such use either, considering the use of wording such as "Examples of plants could be" (emphasis mine). Deli nk (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge with Phytogenics. This fact sheet by the American Association of Swine Veterinarians suggests such additives are in use - at least in pig production - even if their benefits are unproven. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question I could not access the sources, but they seem to be from reliable journals. The concentration of all those plants in a single article may still violate WP:SYNTH; but if they do support the claims of the article, this would prove the nomination's first part to be factually incorrect. Did anyone access these? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the references which I suggest fall into 4 general categories: 1) studies of extracts, an impractical format for commercial feed uses; 2) studies in vitro or in lab animals, WP:PRIMARY as not suitable to imply true biological effects; 3) preliminary feeding studies on chickens (ref. 2) or pigs (ref. 7) for which there are no indications industrially for adoption; 4) there are no systematic reviews of literature or practices. All of this suggests to me an area of research and practice that are only a fanciful hypothesis, i.e., unencyclopedic. --Zefr (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article may currently be being used in a WP:SYNTHy way, but this doesn't seem to me to be sufficient basis for deleting the article. These products might not have been scientifically proven to be efficacious, but are they being used and described as being in use by reliable sources? That seems to me to be the more pertinent question. The 2010 AASV fact sheet that I linked to earlier, for example, states that "phytogenics are plant-derived products used in feed to potentially improve pig performance". In the same year there's this article in the Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, which states that "Phytogenic are a relatively young class of feed additives and in recent years this feed additives have gained considerable attention in the feed industry", and this article in the Journal of Applied Poultry Research, which states that "Some [...] plant-derived (phytogenic) feed additives are gaining market presence". More recently - and possibly more persuasively - there's this 2016 report from Global Market Insights, which, although acknowledging that these compounds have a "lack of efficacy", still states that "Essential oil feed phytogenics market [has a] valuation of over USD 225 million in 2014" and that "Poultry production application dominated the phytogenic feed additives market consumption with valuation at over USD 180 million in 2014.". These are not fanciful quantities. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for summarizing these research reports – which are notably several years old – and the market report which indicates an industry having potential for growth, if mainly as a forecast conspicuous by its absence of sources. My two critical points mentioned in the nomination for deletion, however, remain true, reflecting whether the article is WP:UNDUE and not WP:N. I remain open to further evaluation and feedback here. --Zefr (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not summarise the research reports, I picked out lines to illustrate the fact that these products are being used regardless of whether or not they have been scientifically proved to be efficaceous. That is the issue. Whether they are efficaceous is not relevant for notability purposes, unless a proven lack of effectiveness results in products not being used and not being written about. The market report quotes state the global value of such additives in 2014 - that is not a forecast. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to be deleted because it's short, boring, hasn't been maintained, and is not particularly informative, I would agree, but I cannot agree with the idea of deleting it because the references are old, or because a group of editors don't believe the science (sympathetic though I am to their skepticism. (1) All the references are 2000 onward - and in any case, scientific literature doesn't cease to be relevant merely because of its age. Experimental work is supposed to be repeatable, which means that whether it was done in 2015, 1950,or 1800, the result should be the same in 2025. Reviews of experimental work reflect genuine knowledge, and only become obsolete when newer reviews are available. (2) To delete because we dislike or disbelieve the science is fundamentally wrong. If the page's author has cited genuine, peer-reviewed literature, then it can only be disproved by subsequent equally reliable peer-reviewed literature, not by a general feeling.(3) even if the science is complete rubbish, unless someone can overturn the fact that a lot of money got spent on these things only 2 years ago, then there is a valid claim of relevance. 79.65.235.88 (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Phytogenics seems like a good idea. I think the references are, by and large, fine; what is unsuitable is the extremely fuzzy presentation and random-seeming choice of examples. There's currently no basis for a standalone article here. These might, however, work in the context of the "modes of action" section in Phytogenics, with the added benefit of bringing a few refs to that unref'd section.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merging with Phytogenics seem like a good proposal to me too. There is considerable overlap between the two pages. While Botanical additives could have a larger scope, the current focus of the article is on supplementing animals feeds, which matches well with the scope of the Phytogenics page. Klbrain (talk) 14:48, 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 Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium Gun. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oerlikon KDG[edit]

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

Unable to find any sources, related to this specific weapon name. All I seem to find are mentions to Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium Gun, which has its own wiki page. I believe this weapon is just a small part of the before mentioned weapon system.
Happy to remove WP:AFD nomination, if reliable sources are found and added to the article. lbmarshall (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax/OR/V failure. Ping me is sources are present. In the current form could be speedied or prodded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The weapon in question seems to be a recent iteration of the Oerlikon 35mmm revolver gun. Oerlikon abbreviates those weapons models apparently with "KDA", "KDB", "KDC" etc. This article seems to relate to the "KDG" model. There is a German WP article on the 35 mm revolver gun: here. This gun model is apparently the one used in the above mentioned Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium Gun / Rheinmetall GDM-008 weapons system. I am not quite sure what to do here, we don't have an article on the general 35mm revolver gun either (not to be confused with other 35mm guns Oerlikon produces, like this one: Oerlikon GDF). Dead Mary (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium Gun no independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect to Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium Gun, I agree. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:16, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Metyolkin[edit]

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

Quite confusing entry. It's failing [WP:GNG] and almost failing [WP:ARTIST]. I didn't find comprehensive reviews, as well as exhibitions in prominent public galleries. There are some museum exhibitions, but they are private ones. If someone can find proper Ukrainian sources, that show notability, I will be willing to reconsider. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've marked entries in the article that require proper sourcing and may show some notability to pass WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will present proper sources and additional info to show WP:ARTIST. Need couple of days Udovychenco (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 2004 Patriarch Filaret personally rewards Vladislav Metyolkin with an Order of St. Michael the Archangel of III class – «Order of Merit for reviving spirituality in Ukraine and the establishment of the Local Ukrainian Orthodox Church».

Below is the photo of the Order itself and and a Decree No.692 signed by Patriarch Filaret on Awarding of Order of St. Michael the Archangel of III class to Vladislav Metyolkin. These and all further photos are taken from personal web-site of the artist, in the section Biography=>Awards

Order of St. Michael the Archangel of III class – «Order of Merit for reviving spirituality in Ukraine and the establishment of the Local Ukrainian Orthodox Church»
Decree on Awarding of Order of St. Michael the Archangel of III class to Vladislav Metyolkin

In 2007 Vladislav's Solo exhibition took place in a prominent Kyiv Museum "Spiritual Treasures of Ukraine" which was featured on two major TV channels in Ukraine (both in ukrainian):

1. Exhibition of V.Metyolkin in Program "5th Element" on 5 Kanal (Ukraine)

2. Solo exhibition of V.Metyolkin on TV Channel Kyiv

Moreover there is an article on this topic in ukrainian influental web-site Korrespondent.net "What hangs on the walls of houses in Koncha Zaspa!?".

Here's translation of the first subparagraph: "Such (art) is now represented in the museum "Spiritual Treasures of Ukraine" on Desyatynna street, 12. For the first time in Kiev painter Vladislav Metyolkin presented a solo exhibition of landscapes, which will last until March 18."

Besides, on the personal web-site of the artist in the section Expert Opinions one can find a rewiew of his art by Irina Gorbacheva, Spiritual Treasures of Ukraine Museum Director, art historian, member of the Union of Artists of Ukraine:

"Preservation of traditions is extremely important for the cultural development. I am glad that in the 21st century we met Vladislav Metyolkin, an artist who in his creative works adheres to high ideals of realistic landscape painting arts which originated in the 19th century. In his landscape paintings he combines impeccable preciseness of form with the astonishing culture of light and a thrilling emotionality. He is in love with the nature, and shares generously his love to it with the viewer."

In 2007 V.Metyolkin took part in the exhibition dedicated to the opening of International Foundation "Cultural Heritage", in the gallery «N-Prospect" in St. Petersburg, which was also shown on major TV Channel 5 Kanal (Ukraine).

Interviev with V.Metyolkin in St.Petersburg on 5 Kanal (Ukraine)

Here is direct speech of the first 30 seconds of TV report:

"Relations between Russia and Ukraine are not based on gas alone. As a sign of friendship leading people of Russian art opened the exhibition of Ukrainian artists - more than three hundred works are presented in a new art centre in St. Petersburg."Politics to the politicians, while artists focus on eternal." This slogan could best fit the initiative of one of the most influential cultural funds of the Russian Federation. Gather the best artists of Ukraine and present their paintings in the cultural capital of Russia – despite continuing political strife – the idea is almost incredible, yet successfully implemented."(0:00-0:33)

"The exhibition in the gallery on Nevsky (Prospekt) is only the beginning of a global program to support talented artists. Several grants have already been allocated, and four artists from Ukraine will have their solo exhibitions organized next year in St. Petersburg.

Vladislav Metyolkin is one of them; his paintings will be exhibited for six weeks during the famous white nights."It is important that nowadays people watch on TV not only the threshold or closing of some gas or non-gas pipes. Rather, they should see the opening of the arts centres, fine art centres, centres that unite people and not vice versa." This spring the Russians are planning to take out Ukrainian painters to plein air in Europe, and we only hope that it will serve a good example for our local art bosses. Dmitry Malyuga, Leonid Moseychuk. 5 Channel(1:29-end)

V.Metyolkin was intervieved in person, as one of the top ukrainian artists, invited to the exhibition.

After this successful exhibition International Foundation "Cultural Heritage" awards Vladislav with 2 Diplomas:

Diploma from International Foundation Cultural Heritage for participation in opening of N-Prospekt Gallery
The first-degree Diploma from International Foundation Cultural Heritage «For the contribution to the development of Russian realistic art»

In 2008 International Foundation "Cultural Heritage" organized solo exhibition for V.Metyolkin in the gallery «N-Prospect", St. Petersburg and gave him a Diploma:

Diploma from International Foundation Cultural Heritage commemorated to the opening of solo exhibition of V.Metyolkin

This exhibition is mentioned on the gallery page Vladislav Metyolkin Solo Exhibition and after this exhibition Vledislav Metyokin Art Album was published. This album is listed in Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine catalogue.

In 2012 International Foundation "Cultural Heritage" awards Vladislav with the Gold Medal «For mastership» (a medal of the First degree) and Honorary Diploma — «For Major Contribution To The Art».

The Gold Medal «For Mastership» (a medal of the First degree) from International Foundation "Cultural Heritage"
Honorary Diploma from International Foundation Cultural Heritage «For Major Contribution To The Art»

Finally, Vladislav Metyolkin becomes a member of Coordination Council of International Foundation "Cultural Heritage" which can be seen on the official web-site

Udovychenco (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear claim for notable artist. Prose and clean up are content issues. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note for support of deletion. Two of three awards are received from organisation, in which he is a member of "Coordination council", whatever it means. Also, it looks like the organisation by itself is not quite notable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International Foundation "Cultural Heritage" was founded by famous people: Zurab_Tsereteli, Eduard_von_Falz-Fein and others - you can find all on their page International Foundation "Cultural Heritage" in Section No.2 "Попечительский совет". So the organization IS notable, no need to deny it. Coordination council in such organization makes decisions on main aspects of its operation, and mostly includes art directors and sponsors, and not artists. And in order to become a member of Coordination council, an artist must first get great recognition in the eyes of sponsors and art directors within the organization. So, it is obvious, that recognition and rewards came first, and only than Vladislav Metyolkin was invited to become a member of Coordination Council, which he did. Udovychenco (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:21, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nam cheez jaga[edit]

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

I consider this article fails the WP:N. After doing a quick search I see nothing that would make it notable at all.
Also after searching the history, I believe this edit [26] by an IP, is also the creator of the article. Which in itself isn't reason enough, but the inclusion of creator of the game, Haris Daniyal, (if true as is it unsourced) is most likely the creator of the article due to username similarity.
Possible WP:COI. lbmarshall (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like classic WP:MADEUP article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is made up. This is a typical name, place, animal, thing game (nam is name in urdu, cheez is thing, jaga or jagah is place). I would have suggested redirect to Online word game, but for the fact that this is an implausible search term generally. Lourdes 07:09, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen T. Lane[edit]

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

The general assumption has been that bishops are default notable. However I think it is high time to admit that in some cases they just are not. All the coverage here and all I could find on Lane is internal Episcopal Sources. The exception are a local article he wrote that was published as an op-ed in a local Maine newspaper. No signs that he is turned to as an actual source in Maine on political thought. He presides over less than 12,000 Episcopalians. There are Catholic parishes that are that big. A good example of someone who is not notable who shows that Lane is not notable is Alexander A. Odume. Odume was for several years an LDS area seventy, being one of the presiding figures over 200,000 plus Latter-day Saints in West Africa. He then served as temple president in Aba Nigeria, arguably being the top spiritual leader for 100,000 or so Latter-day Saints. He now is the mission president of the Nigeria Benin City Mission. I can find better sources that tell more of the life of Odume than I can on Lane. It is not even that Lane presides over a small diocese per se. Scott B. Hayashi in the Episcopal Diocese of Utah has only 5,000 total parishoners, but this [27] article from the Deseret News shows people care what he says about some issues beyond the Episcopal community, this article [28] shows attention being given to his taking office. There is a total lack of articles focusing on Lane in the same way. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. But also because I think the less religion we have on Wikipedia, the better. If we were being truthful on any religious leaders Wikipedia page, we would call them misleaders, abusers, liars, and scoundrels, rather than giving them some type of honorable mention. These people should be infamous for their crimes against humanity rather than put on a pedestal. A certain Utah church is more guilty of this than most religions...but I digress. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We base articles on what is written in reliable sources, not the "truth" as known by individual Wikipedia editors. To follow your digression, I am an atheist myself, but I recognise that most (but by no means all) religious leaders genuinely believe what they preach, so to call them misleaders, abusers, liars, and scoundrels is inaccurate. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment shows just how widespread and acceptable anti-Mormonism is. Evidently spewing that type of hate is acceptable in many circles. Although it has no relevance at all to this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And your comment proves your tendency to play the victim. I was speaking of Warren Jeff's church, not the mainstream Mormon church. Furthermore, almost every member of my family is Mormon, so to sit here and say that I spew hate about them, is wrong, I only spread facts. The fact that the leaders of religious organizations don't view themselves as "misleaders, abusers, liars, and scoundrels" is irrelevant, because it is what they are doing even if they don't admit it to themselves. This is not "hate spewing", this is called recognizing reality. These leaders simply act like they know some eternal truth that the rest of us don't have the privilege of knowing. Why not just admit the truth, that none of us really know and we should stop pretending like we know the eternal plan for how humans should live their "mortal" life. Thank you for illustrating my point though, play the victim, never question your own beliefs, surround yourself only with people who agree with you and loudly proclaim anything contrary as "the devils work." -War wizard90 (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the general assumption of notability of bishops can't be applied to all denominations without regard to extent of a bishop's authority or the likelihood of sources existing. I think that that convention grew up with regard to the Catholic and Anglican churches, where a bishop has responsibility for significantly more people than this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, the Episcopalians are the US branch of Anglicanism. I tried to compare membership stats to Church of England ones, but Church of England membership by diocese stats are hard to find, but they seem to generally have many more churches per diocese. I think we need to actually show sources to keep an article like this, and I just don't see any.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that just shows my ignorance about religion in the United States. I was thinking of Church of England bishops here in England, where each has a notional flock (although lots of those are probably people who only go to church for christenings, weddings and funerals) much larger than that of this article subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in Bangor Daily News, Sun Journal, and The Lincoln County News. Hang googles (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage to meet GNG. Sources present in the article and at this AfD are local and routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent here; bishops of major apostolic denominations are per se notable. I really think that consensus has not changed. In this particular case, there appears to be plenty of available online sources. FWIW, I am an Episcopalian, and knew his predecessor's grandson. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 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 08:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curbi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - can use expansion, has a lot of reliable sources per Google search (passes WP:BASIC), has a song charted on the Belgian chart (passes WP:MUSICBIO). WP:ANYBIO is additional, not a required guideline. - TheMagnificentist 16:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Had one song on a "bubbling under" chart here. Hardly a mark of notability. And sadly, didn't pass the Bing test, just the Google test. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 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 08:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Plus a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination. The Beatport listings is largely WP:PRIMARY. One local source on him signing a contract with Spinnin' here at the age of 16 in January 2015. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. No album, one EP. Karst (talk) 11:33, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 European Junior Championship of American football[edit]

This article should be deleted as it does not meet WP:FUTURE because it is on a topic which has not happened yet. -KAP03 (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some preparation (the termination of the qualifying groups) has already taken place, so it doesn't fail WP:FUTURE. GregorBungensheim (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless tournament schedule and precise games are confirmed too early to create. LibStar (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Danna[edit]

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

A WP:PROMO page and a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. I was not able to find significant RS coverage to confirm notability, just passing mentions. Article created by Special:Contributions/DesignEP with not other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, now it has been nominated. Article written by a single-purpose account. Apart from being a good student, there's nothing here to suggest Danna has had any notable successes as an architect. The online sources are simply brief name-checks, while several of the other 'citations' do not give enough info to identify what/when they are. Wikipedia isn't a directory for every architect. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCREATIVE. Sionk (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is a working architect who has gotten a couple of side mentions in reliable sources. May achieve notability in the future, nowhere near it now--which makes this more of a resume than an encyclopedia entry. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:29, 14 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Divinity Angels Of Rock[edit]

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

While the band appears (appeared?) to be signed to a major label, which theorietically would make them pass WP:NBAND, I could not find any significant coverage, or indeed any coverage about the band at all. All I could find were band profiles, streaming sites or websites selling the band's CDs. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A previous article about the band was deleted last year: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divinity Angels of Rock for more information. As I am not an administrator I have no access to the old article but I presume this is a new article and thus G4 doesn't apply. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and I have a sneaking suspicion that G4 could apply here. This is the editor's only contribution. Fails the criteria under WP:MUSIC entirely. Karst (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging MBisanz who deleted the previous version of the article, to check if this version is identical to the old one. If so, this should be tagged as G4. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not identical, but pretty damn close. MBisanz ^talk 17:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt both the "Of" and "of" versions of the article. No substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources offered or to be found. Even by self-publishing standards, seems super-thin. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:19, 14 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 as the subsequent improvements and comments have been uncontested and the comments now show it is in fact satisfying the notability standards (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg N. Gregoriou[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Greg N. Gregoriou

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

Gregoriou is a professor of finance, the article is only sourced to the bio of his employer. I was not able to find anything other than another employer bio on him. Nothing comes even remotely close to showing he has made a significant impact in his academic field of finance, or that he meets any other notability criteria for an academic. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A GS h-index of 19 may pass WP:Prof#C1. Article is poorly written. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Bugachi (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)In response to John Pack Lambert comment that he does not think that Greg N Gregoriou did not make a contribution to the field of finance - I encourage John Pack Lambert and other Wikipedia moderators to research Greg N Gregoriou's work -[reply]

--Bugachi (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Dr Greg N Gregoriou is a well know researcher in the area of hedge funds and Commodity Trading Advisors. He published many books and articles in this area. Please check the provided links and books. We will continue to work on this article to improve it and add more references. Please remove from the deletion list and remove the flag from the article.[reply]

^[1]

References

^ https://www.amazon.com/Greg-N.-Gregoriou/e/B001IXUDWS

— Bugachi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete need in depth independent reporting on him to support the key claims of notability ("well known", highlighting certain papers/contributions as "important", and similar statements). "His most important contribution" is an article on which he does not appear to be the main author (need actual cite that he is notable for this, not just that this is notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED and being the best of one's work doesn't make it good beyond oneself). Article suffers from COI (NPOV is evident in writing, describing financial journals as "scientific", academic boosterism of his PhD institution, etc) and seems thinly rewritten from copyvio, so I think thesubject is uncertain/marginal and this article is into the realm of TNT. Admins will be able to see from the deleted history a chain of COI editors working to get this person into WP. DMacks (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked again and added some more details to my above !vote. DMacks (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick Google search confirms that he's published numerous books on hedge trading theory. The external links bother me per WP:EL: but that's easily corrected. Also pinging @DGG:, an experienced editor with insight into what makes academic articles notable for Wikipedia.Timtempleton (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:PROF as an expert -- meets WP:AUTHOR also.WP:PROF as an expert can be shown either by journals or books, depending on the subject. In his case, Google Scholar shows articles with cites sf 145, 122, 110, 98, 68 .... In all fields but some of biomedicine anyonre with 2 or more papers cited over 100 times is certainly notable. h factor is a poor measure, because it is sensitive not to the best work, but to the volume of medium quality routine work. --one gets a high h factor by publishing dozens of medium level journal articles, which shows one a productive but not necessarily important scientist. Worldcat shows over 30 major books, all from good publishers, most as principal author. It also shows a few reviews of his books--more can be found by searching. His most widely held book is in over 11q00 libraries, which makes it a standard textbook (that's a third FaF criterion) [29]. Mostt of this was in the article , so there's no excuse for the nomination. As for in depth coverage, WP:PROF is unique--it is an alternative to the GNG, and can be met quite independently, as long as the publications are verified by a third party RS, which is done by worldcat DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm attracted here because I see the wp:TNT essay invoked, and I think TNT is almost always wrong. See new essay wp:TNTTNT. Here, it is mentioned with the TNT call that "Admins will be able to see from the deleted history a chain of COI editors working to get this person into WP." Why shouldn't everyone be able to see the chain of COI editors in the preserved history? Why not put a tag on the article about COI editors, and/or a warning on the talk page. Deleting the article completely sets up possibility of the same stuff happening, but without allowing good editors to know what they are dealing with. --do ncr am 02:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doncram just wrote that TNTTNT essay and this is the first time it has been mentioned. DMacks (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:AUTHOR with multiple published books from Elsevier, McGraw Professional, etc: Google books preview. Such as Corporate governance and regulatory impact on mergers and acquisitions : research and analysis on activity worldwide since 1990 Amsterdam ; Boston : Academic Press, ©2007. Quantitative finance series. This looks to be a serious work. And there are multiple similar publications.

Here's a short author bio link; similar to what one would expect for notable academics. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the article a bit: diff. It can be improved further. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 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 merge to Café Tacuba. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppo (band)[edit]

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

This band appears to fail WP:NBAND. According to the article they made one album which was never released. There are four sources listed - two don't mention the band, one is a dead link, and one is in Spanish (which may be a good source, but I can't read it to know for sure). Brad v 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Café Tacuba#Rubén Isaac Albarrán Ortega. Not all of it, certainly, but a little more detail there wouldn't hurt. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not notable side-project, Notability is not inherited. And really, a MySpace-only album fails all the criteria under WP:MUSIC. The Spanish sources refer to a handful of concerts. Karst (talk) 12:02, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Singar[edit]

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

No sources, a quick search found nothing (however difficult to tell as other actresses of the same name exist) KylieTastic (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's probably worth noting here that both Jodi (2001 film) and Vaalee (film) make the claim that Singar had lead roles in those films which, if accurate, would probably satisfy WP:NACTOR. Also, just as a general tip about researching Indian subjects, it's sometimes a good idea to use this tool, which is more focused on Indian newspapers and media sites than Google News is. This tool is recommended by Wikipedia:Points to note while debating in WikiProject India related AFDs. (Obviously this is not an admonishment, I'm just offering another tool.) While there isn't scores of in-depth stuff written about her, there is some stuff like this and this that would suggest she had significant roles in multiple films. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Area Radio Monitoring Association[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Lacks clear notability, no 3rd party sources, and fails WP:CLUB. Creational edit [30] says that this was deleted some time in the past as well. Maintained by someone close to the organization as per talk page, possible violation of WP:OWN. I propose the article be deleted. ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user adding the tag did so after give and take on other pages regarding these tags. I oppose the deletion and removed the tags because the information presented in the article is factual (no evidence that it isn't has been presented) and informational. Since the subject is a subset of a niche hobby, but one of the largest of its kind, there just is not a lot of ways to source it other than to Google the name and link to other random mentions. I will be happy to add these useless links to retain the article if that is what you want. Hope this helps satisfy the desires. N9jig (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand what the problem is.

CARMA has been well established for many many years and is an Active Radio Monitoring Association Even with Members from well outside of Chicago --- I OPPOSE THE DELETION ecps92 —Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yikes i do not know how to do this...

Hello all, as a member of this club for many years. I find it strange it is getting called out on "notability". This is a simple informational posting about the club. Nothing to fancy, not promoting a for profit something something, just saying this club is out there.

-- I think the goal here is to force more people add content to the wiki and this [deletion request] just forces that to happen. Kind of a strange way to make people add more content to a wiki. Kinda like getting poked with a stick.

So, so be it. I plan on being more involved in adding content. I oppose the deletion jd

Have a happy/safe new year 01-01-2017 03:20 UTC, 12-31-2016 21:20 local

IN DEO SPERAMUS CETEROS OMNES OBSERVAMUS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C58D:1BA0:FDB6:FB31:BA74:E691 (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--- I oppose the deletion

--- I oppose the deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.113.48 (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Oppose the deletionEric K9LGE  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:D00:C0B0:F167:13B5:B85A:6E0E (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability - I can't find ANY third party media coverage indicating why this particular club is different from any other group of radio operators. There's also not a single valid keep argument.Timtempleton (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In searching for independent coverage, I have found a book mention, [31], this [32], and a Chicago Tribune mention [33]. Probably not enough to be considered significant. The size of the club helps, but there is just not enough to meet WP:CLUB. MB 03:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good job finding even those - you dug hard.Timtempleton (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--- I oppose the deletion W9ARG 01 09 2017 9:30AM CST

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:54, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against a batch nomination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1905–06 Colgate men's basketball team[edit]

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

This team isn't particularly notable, there isn't a lot of information available for the team in the early 1900s beyond a list of statistics, and if this is even encyclopedic, it could probably be grouped into a larger article by head coach or decade. There is a long list of red-linked seasons for this team that do not each need an article. Natureium (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 02:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a navbox at the bottom with many similar articles. Deleting one and not the others is not a good idea, and deleting a bunch of articles would need more substantial discussion. Essentially, on its own merits, I don't think it meets the GNG, but I would rather we keep it until a wider discussion can be had on all articles similar to it for consistency's sake. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 09:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 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. (soft) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intend Change[edit]

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

Uses WP:SPS and Primary Sources which are regurgitation of press releases in PR trade press pubs. Fails WP:GNG and should be deleted as per WP:PLUG as an advertisement for a dissolved defunct company Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 02:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources on the page only mention subject in passing, google searches don't turn anything up that isn't already included. Fails GNG Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:02, 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. (soft) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ManyOne Networks[edit]

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

Uses WP:SPS and Primary Sources which are regurgitation of press releases in PR trade press pubs. Fails WP:GNG and should be deleted as per WP:PLUG as an advertisement for a dissolved defunct company Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a second ManyOne Networks company which uses the same business name on the internet, but it is not the same company as this one which went into bankruptcy in 2009, See [34]. This Second ManyOne Networks company is also now in bankruptcy proceedings which were filed 12 September 2016. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 02:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Way of Life (Lakota Tunder album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album from a band who's page has just been deleted. Evking22 (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 02:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A9 - the artist no longer has an article; no indication why this recording is significant. Gongshow talk 17:13, 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 redirect to Beacon Audiobooks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Publishing[edit]

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

I could not find enough coverage for this publishing company; searching for the company and its parent company resulted mostly in brief profiles, passing mentions, or false positives about an apparently-unrelated Christian publishing company also called Beacon Publishing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 02:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beacon Audiobooks which appears to be slightly more notable. The latter may in turn need to be redirected to Spectra Music Group, but that's for a later discussion. For now, I don't believe that Wikipedia needs two articles on this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beacon Audiobooks (which btw may or may not be notable itself). But this clearly doesn't deserve it's own article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:05, 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 no consensus. Mz7 (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Athole Highlanders' Farewell to Loch Katrine[edit]

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

Individual tune doesn't have great claim to notability. Ostrichyearning (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there seem to be multiple reliable scholarly sources available: I have added some to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. -- Dane ^talk 02:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 02:15, 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. Mz7 (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Pagel[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. The claim of winning a Cannes Golden Dolphin is not supported by the source. - Mr X 12:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane ^talk 02:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 02:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like the page that the source is linking to is the front page of all of the award categories. I don't think there's a direct link to its award "Category C22: Corporate Videos, Blogs, Podcasts", which is where the film he co-produced is listed as a Gold Winner. You have to dig through the website to get to that list: http://www.cannescorporate.com/en/winners2013.php#cat_A1 The credit on the page gives it to the company "Lani Pixels", but in the credits in the film itself, he is listed as the co-producer. Pclibuser (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is the son of director Kim Pagel (article by same user and deleted at AfD) who directed The LEGO Story, an animated short. The Golden and Silver Dolphin awards at the Cannes Corporate Media & TV Awards are very minor prizes, more than 100 are handed out. On Thomas Pagel himself I have found no sources. Fails WP:BASIC. — Sam Sailor 01:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and fails GNG. Kierzek (talk) 06:02, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siliconn City[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Also the creater of the page is closely associated with the film. Their username (Vsavanur) matches the "line producer" (Vijay Savanur) that they added to the infobox. It doesn't show up unless you edit the page because line producer isn't a supported param. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there are a few articles about this film. I'd stub it and say it needs references.Timtempleton (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. -- Dane ^talk 02:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 02:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some regional films do not make a lot of promotion but it shows traces of notability --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 08:59, 14 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Schultz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:BIO it is "not notable" - Reference 1 is a review of the band. Reference 2 (Although maybe from the NYT) is still a review of a band. Reference 3 does not exist. Reference 5 Does not refer to schultz at all. Rudolph Steiner (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<topic>|list of <topic>-related deletion discussions]]. <RudolphSteiner>

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Pigface (or Lab Report). --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, save for the redirect to Pigface part. Yes, he's an early contributor to Pigface but nobody who happens to be looking for info on Schultz is really going to find any by reading the Pigface article. NJZombie (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure why the user proposing this is focused on articles they themselves created and previously successfully defended from deletion, all related to Matthew Schultz and Lab Report, but that's what seems to be happening. At best, I could see a merger of the related articles but a total purge of all related information seems severe. NJZombie (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A merger would be a good idea. The ATG wikipage covers the intrument used in Lab Report and Pigface. The Pigface page covers his envolvment in Pigface and the Lab Report page covers his involvment in that project. Would you support a merger? Rudolph Steiner (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* I'll chime in here. This is actually Matthew Schultz. So here is a the conflict of interest. This is directly in my interest. Recently, I am working with several others (this includes some in the music business - yet to be announced) in building a charity to assist those in addiction recovery and with sobriety maintenance. We are also working to develop drug prevention programs for kids. You can image that over the past 25 years, I, as well as many of my friends, have fallen victim to drugs and/or alcohol. It seems being in the music business. This is almost a given. I have lost fellow Pigface band mates like Paul Raven and William Tucker to drug related/depression issues. I have even played Cold Waves in Chicago to support the charity for Jamie Duffy who was also a friend and my sound guy for my band Lab Report. These lost friends are a just a few, amongst many. I have seen so many fall to the wayside and I have worked to help many more. I was an addict back in the ’90s and I was a lucky one who made it out alive, given the amount of drugs we did. Over the years I have worked and studied to develop programs that help addicts with recovery and sobriety maintenance. What I found and utilized were indigenous practices, like the sweat lodge, to find a center and move away from addiction. The charity that I am building will generate funding in order to offer these same services to those in need. I utilize the indigenous practices from around the world, that I have studied for the past 20 years, in a means to offer an additional healing modality to addicts and those in recovery, and to offer youth prevention programs. So...I want you to imagine that a parent is deciding whether or not to send their child to a summer prevention camp. These would be weekend warrior retreats that offer drum and rattle making classes, sweat lodges for kids, along with other survival, outdoor activities and finally, they all dance around a huge fire playing their instruments. Sounds great? Or imagine a possible investor to our charity is doing a bit of research and Googled me (Matthew Schultz)? What they will see a series of aggregated information mostly based on the Wikipedia page and through that Pigface. Here is the thing. The horribly titled songs that Pigface created, don’t represent me AND I never wrote them. Many of the songs that are associated with me because of the wiki page were written after I left the band. Why do I have to pay a penalty because of a wiki page? The information exists on several other pages. Although I wish it was gone there too, actually. Can we not allow that Matthew Schultz page to be deleted or merged? I am attaching an image of the search. Thank you. I know it is not wikipedias fault. But times are changing as is technology. I never thought that I would wake up and see that a Google search would associate me with thingsI never did. I have also contacted Googles search department about this. I would like to hear your thoughts. Thank you. Here is a link to screen capture of the search. http://mattschultz.com/Screen-Shot.jpg MattSchultz2014 (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I see no real issue with your page being merged into Lab Report. However, having done the same search in Google for your name, I think a Wikipedia page deletion is only going to remove a small portion of the results in Google's sidebar results as only a minimal portion of the results shown there lead back to Wikipedia. All of the album images and titles will still show, for example. NJZombie (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting a merge or deletion. - I would have to agree about the information being freely available on other pages. His involvement in Pigface is well documented on the Pigface page, and the same for his involvement in Lab Report. There is little to suggest that a dedicated personal page must exist when it is basically information copied from or contained in other pages. Also, I believe him to be correct in his assumption that data retrieved from Wikipedia is used in search results, and are creating false positives due to the aforementioned association with the band.

Furthermore I may suggest that this page may be subject to deletion based on WP:PROMOTION as the page creation date was well after his involvements in Lab Report and Pigface and only doing solo work, for which I see no citations. I vote for merger or deletion.--bowensanders (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are we going to do then? MattSchultz2014 (talk) NJZombie (talk) Jax 0677 (talk) bowensanders (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. (soft) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zekeriya Şarbak[edit]

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

Delete: as vanity page for non-notable bureaucrat. Fails WP:GNG. Impossible to judge anything from text which is largely incomprehensible. Quis separabit? 18:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 World Figure Skating Championships[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as there is nothing to be said about it until 2018 which means it is WP:TOOSOON and it is WP:FUTURE. -KAP03 (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 31 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, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. The quota allocation will be known shortly and the host has been appointed. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one year away is not too soon for a world championships in a major sport —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but information needs to be added in order to increase the relevance of the page.jakeg13579 19:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone actually intends to perform the merge then I can restore the content for them. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact of menstrual cups[edit]

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

An essay. Does not read like an encyclopedic article (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#ESSAY), and has problems with WP:OR/WP:N. It is almost certainly a student project for a course I was unable to trace, and one where the instructor seems to have failed to explain to this student the difference between encyclopedic topic and an essay, and the policies of no original research and notability. IMHO this is OR essay that fails N. I thought about merger to Environmental impact of pharmaceuticals and personal care products but the topic seems to detailed to warrant a mention there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Environmental impact of pharmaceuticals and personal care products, maybe in the form of a paragraph in a section "Examples". There's good stuff in here, but far too much synthesis and OR to stand as it is. Seems a lot of work has gone into assembling a nice spread of references; this would make a high-quality short section in the more general article.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although plenty of work has gone into this, the whole is a synthesis and and original research. It gives the false idea that there is a significant Environmental impact of menstrual cups, when in fact no other writer has suggested that. I considered the idea of merging, but most of the content is already in the appropriate articles. The diagrams could be used elsewhere, but they are outside the scope of this debate. Another idea is to transwiki this to Wikiversity, so it can be offered there, but I do not know if they think this is suitable. Original research is accepted on Wikiversity. It would be good if the instructor for the course that made this could filter proposed article topics to make sure they are encyclopedic before students put in effort to write on them. Other topics can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Graeme, interesting discussion (especially its extension at the edu noticeboard [[35]). I accede to your perspective.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be salvaged to menstrual cup, then delete - what a strange idea to create a whole separate article for this topic! If there are environmental impacts worth discussing (and good references), then include that information on the menstrual cup page but there is really no need for a separate article. EvMsmile (talk) 23:33, 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 keep. Whether to make different guidelines for different regions can be discussed in a broader discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CD Aguiluchos USA[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Fourth division in the US is not like Europe. The players are all redlinks because they are not notable and only local coverage may exist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's more important things to do on Wikipedia than witchhunt valid articles while condescendingly playing the eurosnob card. This article meets GNG because it receives local coverage and regional/national coverage by playing in a national league and in national tournaments. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have local coverage! It only has coverage from the league. Press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing in the top level amateur league in US/Canada is sufficient for notability. It's a national league. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 22:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that only fully professional leagues are notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would mean that we'd have no English articles lower than League 2 ... I think you may be thinking of season articles, not team articles. Nfitz (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The season articles lower than MLS are either not maintained or inconsistently edited. No, I'm thinking of team articles. Players who have not played in a fully professional league are not notable (unless they've played in the Olympics). Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played in national cup - 2016 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, meeting WP:FOOTYN for clubs. Nfitz (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the coverage in a non-local paper that they played in the 2016 cup? If it can be provided, I will gladly withdraw, but this logic is flawed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's flawed, is you are looking for a non-local paper, and ignoring the consensus that has been long-established around the subject. Nfitz (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with the consensus, it makes sense for Europe and South America. In North America, fourth division is not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nfitz and long standing concensus supported by numerous AfDs, playing in a national competition (in this case the country's premier cup competition) is sufficient for notability. Agree with the comments above that the US fourth tier would not be inherently notable on its own since this competition, although national is organised into regional divisions, but the fact that this club has played in a fully national competition as a result of their performances in this league makes them more notable. Fenix down (talk) 09:32, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shirish Atre-Pai[edit]

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

Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If she writes most often in Marathi, is it possible we are missing sources because of a language barrier? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She seems an accomplished poetess herself and was involved in Samyukta Maharashtra Movement, but the problem lies in finding the reliable sources for the same. Firstly her name is "Shirish Pai" and Atre is her father's name (in Maharashtra ladies add their father's name to theirs). Secondly in Google Books her name is written as Śirīsha Pai (notice "a" being added to the name which makes it even more difficult to find reliable source). She also seems to be the owner of a newspaper named "Maratha" which Raj Thackeray wanted to buy (see here). We would need someone quite familiar with Marathi literature / Maharashtra politics to resolve this one. vivek7de--tAlK 15:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WorldCat shows that she has written 42 works, all of which are in Marathi. I am leaning towards "Keep", but since I don't know enough about the subject or the language, I'm refraining from !voting. Elia Soaten (talk) 23:29, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Australoid[edit]

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

No sources, seems to be a bit of jargon only used in one book. Not a notable concept to be separated from Australoid. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 03:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, probable promotion / peacocking regarding the book that uses this term. —Grammardoc— ^talk 04:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually seems a reasonably widely used term; have a look at the Scholar search link above. I'm getting the impression that there are a variety of good sources to ground & inform this article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elmidae; even limiting it to 2016 produces >2 pages of GScholar hits. That said, while the topic certainly meets our requirements, the article seems a century out of date. Guettarda (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Australoid race. I think notability is a red herring, the entire article is WP:FRINGE based on a 93 year old work of scientific racism, which justifies WP:TNT in my book. There are Google Scholar hits, and some of them are recent-ish, but I wouldn't describe any of them as good sources; lots of fringe Indian physical anthropology, some mentions in historical overviews that apparently haven't updated their references since the 1940s, maybe a handful of examples of mainstream anthropologists using it to refer to a morphometric/craniometric type (but these are very WP:PRIMARY). In theory we could have an article covering Proto-Australoid as a notable historic/fringe concept, but I doubt the sources are there. In any case, this isn't it. – Joe (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the event that this is actually scientific racism, I've added to two more deletion sorting pages. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete (student newspaper)[edit]

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

These two articles appear to be about the same subject, and also the newspaper fails the notability guidelines. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 14:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple awards received from and covered by The Independent and The Guardian constitutes at least minimum evidence of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Student media awards are not major distinctions. Is there a parent article to which this sourced content can be merged? czar 07:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I can see is List of student newspapers in the United Kingdom and, at the risk of running headlong into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a large number of those have their own articles with little more in the way of sourcing than this. I would think if this is deleted, then a multi-AfD for those would be then appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Student newspaper content is generally appropriate in an article about the school: in this case, merging to a new subsection of University of East Anglia#Student life might be the most appropriate thing to do if editors don't find a separate article to be warranted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I am inclined to agree with Eggishorn and keep this article, but it would be helpful if there was only one article. I propose merging Concrete – UEA's Independent Student Newspaper to Concrete (student newspaper) as the latter is the one linked from the University's page. Would it be appropriate to do the merge while the AfD is still open? There is no need to merge the talk pages as only the target has anything other than a Project banner which is on both. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 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. T. Canens (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firebeatz[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable artist, has many songs charted in many different countries. Many reliable sources can be located on search engines. - TheMagnificentist

Such as? I noticed this interview where they are talking about an album or an EP. Nothing yet, though. This is all WP:TOOSOON in my book. Karst (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is that it is a reliable secondary source and here's few more 1 2 3 4. It also meets the WP:MUSICBIO criteria #2 by having at least one single on a national music chart. There's nothing wrong if they're collaborations because the policy didn't say anything specifically about it. - TheMagnificentist 11:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When there are only two charting singles and these are collaborations, it is stretching the criteria to the limit. Especially if one single only reached the lower echelons of the Belgian Dance Chart. The sources are a start, but I would not call them substantial. I'm afraid that is an indication of it all being too soon. If there had been an album of some sort, then I would have said a weak keep. 'Looking at discogs.com all I see is an EP and a string of digital singles, mostly collaborations pushed by Spinnin', no doubt. Karst (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMagnificentist: Please note (again) that interviews are not secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Charted material are all collaborations, fails the criteria under WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 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. Michig (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbar Ghazipuri[edit]

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

This article is and was complete puffery. I removed all the uncited sections. From searching I have not found any reliable sources, nor evidence Barbar Ghazipuri, real name Mohd Anwar Jamal Faiz, is more notable than any random guy who runs a couple of blogs. BethNaught (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable blogger/YouTuber Spiderone 20:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Elia Soaten (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable SM7^--talk-- 06:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete - Adhering to Wikipedia's aim of inclusion of diversified languages and content, i don't see this article to be a candidate for deletion. Many links cited have the reference and the face is known. The figure in discussion is not a celebrity of gigantic strature, yet should not be deleted only because online presence is less. The citations, blogs and pages show the correctness of data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toughjamy123 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Toughjamy123 is clearly the same as User:Toughjamy, who in the past has egregiously inserted content on his amateurish and non-notable blog into Wikipedia articles such as here. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator is only proposing a merge and pre-merge copy editing of the article to address concerns. This is outside of the purview of AfD. A way to move forward is to start a merge discussion on an article talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jigsaw puzzle accessories[edit]

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

Proposed merge with Jigsaw puzzle. The article largely comprises unreferenced WP:OR and WP:NOTHOWTO-type content, and appears to have been created many years ago by a long-inactive editor with a likely COI with the manufacturer of many of these products. Once the tautologies, original synthesis, and promotional content are stripped out, I see no justification for a freestanding article consisting of the scant remains. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:23, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benji Travis[edit]

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

Much like his wife Judy, I do not believe Benji Travis is notable enough for Wikipedia. A majority of the sources are not about Benji himself, but his children or the YouTube channel his wife runs. Furthermore, some sources that are also in the article on Judy are not reliable, such as #3, #5 (it appears that employees of the company uFluencer are the ones creating articles on these individuals), #6 (the article is mainly about a specific video), #8 (mainly about his wife), #9 (again, the article is mainly about a specific video), #10 (mainly about his daughter), #12, #14, and #16. I think aside from being deleted, this article should be locked so only administrators can edit it. The image in the article appears to have been uploaded by the subject himself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Benji_travis_video_influencer_brand.jpg) which (as far as I know) is allowed, but it makes the case that the article is not NPOV stronger because it shows he knows the article exists (but has not made that clear to everyone else like one is supposed to). Andise1 (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment - Just looked at the article again, and the section titled "ItsJudytime, ItsJudysLife, & ItsMommysLife" is clearly NPOV/promotional (i.e. "With over 1 billion videos views to date Benji Travis has helped his now wife to work with some of the biggest fortune 500 brands and become one of the most respected Mom Influencers online. The Two Channels are part of Youtubes top 1% of an exclusive group called the Youtube Preferred list"). Andise1 (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam on an otherwise unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stratos Tzitzis[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO for lack of independent sources about the subject. - Mr X 12:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never edited in the enWikipedia - hope i could solve some problems --Buchhandlung Artificium (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 00:54, 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.