The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the exception of a few non-policy-based comments from editors with limited history, unanimous agreement to delete, in this well-attended debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Communists for Kerry[edit]

Communists for Kerry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails to establish notability -- even more so than the recently-deleted related article The People's Cube; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The People's Cube. -- The Anome (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 23:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no significant coverage in RS, fails WP:ORG. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another example of how low the notability threshold used to be. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks notability, hence article is unsourced. TFD (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The purges will continue until Thoughtcrime is eradicated. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add sources to the article if you believe sources exist. This kind of spurious comment helps no-one. These discussions are based on Wikipedia's policies, not some sort of Communist-era "purge" mentality. Find substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources, add references to them to the article, and the article will survive this Deletion discussion. If you care enough about this article to call it's deletion a "purge" then surely you won't mind putting in the work. I look forward to reading the article when you're done. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - classic agitprop, but non-notable and un-funny satire. Thousands of American service members and millions of Iraqis were killed due to snarky crap like this allowing the re-election of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, although this effort didn't even get lasting media coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it appalling that you let your personal political preferences cloud your judgement on this matter. As a long time Wiki reader and donor I see this once great vault of knowledge slide into political activism, for example read this. I must admit the page needs editing but this discussion seems to have less to do with quality standards and more with members' political agendas. Powderday (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Powerday: It's not about politics, it's about Wikipedia policy. If you, or anyone else, can find multiple independent reliable sources that establish notability for this article's subject, per WP:NOTABILITY, it can be kept. If not, not. So far, no-one seems to have been able to do so. -- The Anome (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The post I was responding too was clearly politically motivated, I'm sure you'll agree? The sources should be updated, on that you are right. Powderday (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, although CommunistsForKerry did not receive sustained media coverage as it disbanded after the 2004 election, and thus in some metaphorical sense fails WP:BLP1E, I would suggest that Atbashian-the-biography could pass WP:BLP1E as well as WP:GNG for his agitprop artistry -- in addition to CommunistsForKerry, he was also the main person behind ThePeople'sCube, and has some law-enforcement-related news coverage related to protesting Hamas. See my specific suggestion below. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Oleg Atbashian, leaving a redirect from Communists for Kerry to the newly-created Oleg Atbashian#Communists_for_Kerry, and merge the sources from The People's Cube into Oleg Atbashian#The_People's_Cube (admins can recover them from the recent AfD which sparked this current AfD as well as from [1] or Draft:People's Cube or CSD'd draft[2] by Karunamon). The existing Communists for Kerry article already mentions that most of the group behind CfK immediately migrated to TPC website -- they are not the same topic, but they are closely linked, and both are projects founded and/or led by Atbashian. He has also been in the news more recently, for freedom of speech-related altercations with the campus police at George Mason University. I would remind all and sundry that WP:BLP applies to all pages, and that Special:Contributions/Dr.Oleg.Atbashian. was a bluelink in 2014 (though possibly WP:DBTF applies), so if you disagree with me that sufficient sources exist to satisfy WP:GOLDENRULE with respect to Atbashian and his activities, please remember to be clear that yours is a policy-motivated stance. Rather than dump refs here, I will put them into Draft:Oleg Atbashian. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your inpot. The merge is a good idea. I have created a new draft for the "the people's cube' wiki entry, and thought about merging it with Atbashian's own entry, but I'm afraid the result will be too large an article. Can you comment on this? The draft is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:People%27s_Cube or click here. The draft is currently awaiting final review.Powderday (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied elsewhere, but just for the record WP:SIZERULE says that we will have no trouble, and if we do someday, WP:SPINOFF is the solution. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For every article, Wikipedia has a page that lists all Wiki-pages referencing that article. For CFK, that page has 56 incoming links. Wikipedia articles that link to Communists for Kerry includes 32 legitimate Wikipedia articles referencing Communists For Kerry. Shouldn't the existence of 32 legitimate Wikipedia articles referencing Communists For Kerry serve as proof of notability by default? Besides, deleting the CFK page will lead to all those other Wiki articles to have invalid links, hurting Wikipedia's own reliability. Rewriting history is tricky that way. I would understand if Wikipedia was printed on paper and had a space limit. Deleting electronic articles has no such justification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atbashian (talk • contribs) 18:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC) — Atbashian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, there is such a thing as WP:NOTPAPER. No, the number of wikilinks to the topic is not crucial, that just means cleanup work (but it is easy work because the what-links-here tool gives the todo-list). The key here is WP:GOLDENRULE aka WP:GNG, which your sources provided below will help answer, thank you. Remember to be WP:NICE to your fellow wikipedians, and to WP:AGF, we are here to help if we can, so please remain calm and friendly. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete @Atbashian: Firstly, the number of links an article is not a valid argument to prevent the deletion of an article. See WP:POPULARPAGE and WP:ARBITRARY. Secondly there is no "significant coverage" of the subject from reliable sources that are independent from the subject meaning it does not meet WP:GNG. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 20:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the reasons given above. Safiel (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability proven without a shadow of a doubt by extensive news coverage by leading mainstream publications like the BBC, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Scotsman, New York Post, MTV, Fox News, NY Newsday, etc. Below are some links to the 2004 media coverage of the Communists for Kerry group, activities, and interviews I was able to recover from the archived pages. The coverage on left-wing blogs is also extensive (mostly relating to the Fox News controversy), as well as an entertaining thread of comments on John Kerry's own blog. I'm also including a few expired links at the bottom, for historical purposes. The sheer volume and the prominent names should speak for themselves. I only wish I had compiled this list sooner.  :: — Atbashian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:07, January 14, 2017 (UTC).

The sources for my proposed upmerge to Oleg Atbashian are somewhat more extensive than the just-CFK-specific reflist shown above, because Atbashian has been involved in CFK in 2004, the spinoff effort TPC since then, and a legal altercation in 2016 with GMU. Please see Draft_talk:Oleg Atbashian for a detailed ref-by-ref analysis. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- The Communists For Kerry group, CFK, is referred to in notable, independent publications and news outlets as listed above. The personal views of politically motivated editors must be set aside or WP is destined to sink into obscurity. As a user and donor I don't want to see that happen! Snit333 (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"As a user and donor" - how is that relevant? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Exemplo, I'm afraid you are taking this all too personally. By saying "as a user and a donor" Snit333 probalby wanted to show his attachment and fondness of Wikipedia. Your reply to this well meant comment is - in my opinion - unnecessary spiteful. Powderday (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Let's keep wikipedia neutral, please, or it will los all credibility. The sources mentioned clearly show Kommunists for Kerry was notable at the time of the street protests against G.W.Bush. It's inherent to "elections" that - once the elections are over - the protest groups / PACS / volunteer / campaigns lose a big part of their relevance and notability. I do not see why this page should be deleted and the relevant "Billionaires for Bush" page, which is actually just the same type of group (but left wing) can stay on wikipedia. If - in 30 years from now - people want to learn something about the way political campaigns were organised and the street protests they encompassed, finding entries like the ones I mentioned above (or the -hopefully soon to be reinstated- people's cube entry) will give relevant insights and information. Also, I think that sensitive political entries or discussions like the above should be seriously debated by senior editors to avoid activism by politically motivated wikipedians.Powderday (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't speak for other editors, but I can categorically say that my participation in Articles for Deletion discussions is in no way motivated by political views, "spitefulness" or bias. My !votes are based purely on Wikipedia's policies, nothing more, and if anyone believes otherwise then it's not my fault. If it seems like I've commented on a lot of articles that lean one way or another politically, then that too is not my fault - suggesting that any editor has a political motivation or bias when all they are doing is participating in one of Wikipedia's standard processes undermines whatever arguments people are trying to make. Let's keep these decisions strictly about policy and refrain from casting aspersions, direct or implied, about other editors.Exemplo347 (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, my apologies. But as you can see in someprevious comments there are some among us who have trouble with staying neutral. I'm very grateful for your pointing out the obvious faults in the references and structure of the previous draft, and I made an effort to change them myself today, I hope with good result.Powderday (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your apology also extends to the post you made on the talk page of another editor about me. Yes, I did see it, I just chose not to rise to it. You may want to evaluate your own neutrality on this subject. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apology extends to every single form of injury, any of my comments ever inflicted upon you. And that is no melodrama: if you are indeed commenting on the TPC site and the CFK site out of concern for the quality of WP, then I find that commendable. I think it's amazing how much work is done by people like yourself. But the comment on the other user's talk page (i'm not sure which one?) referred not to you explicitely I presume? I just found it "strange" that the reviewer (not you) of my TPC draft kept ignoring my request for detailed comments on the new references and edits to the page, so I had no idea how to improve it. That's why I asked help other reviewers who "passed by" on the talk page.

• Comment It has been proposed to merge Oleg Atbashian (as an author) with Communists for Kerry and the People's Cube. But I'm afraid the new "people's cube" draft will be too big to just add as a sub-page to this new merged entry. I have no experience with merging, is there someone with advice on this topic? Thank you very much for your input everyone, because of all the comments the new entry is already significantly improved!Powderday (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing the significant, in-depth, independent coverage. Neutrality^talk 02:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality, can you take a look at reorganized sources for my proposed BLP-rename? I am working to see whether there are additional WP:RS with depth, but at present I believe that distinct topic is coming close to passing WP:GOLDENRULE (depends on whether the listed barelinks have depth). Also ping The Anome who originated the AfD, can you please comment on the sources thus far w.r.t. the rename-slash-upmerge-to-BLP-topic idea? Some reasonable depth on Oleg and his CFK and TPC groups does exist (albeit relatively minimal in each instance) of detailed set of factoids published in newspapers and on television during 2004, 2006, 2012, 2016, including a bit of international coverage with less depth (but helps improve breadth-of-coverage methinks). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Prithee WP:MERCY... since I believe the usual seven-day-WP:TIAD-thing is approaching, however, myself and another wikipedian or two ARE still working on verifying several barelinks e.g. The Atlantic for applicability/depth/etc... if the closing admin believes that work has a shot at success, either for retaining Communists for Kerry or perhaps renaming/merging it into Oleg Atbashian the group's leader, I would request relisting. I expect to be finished in the next three days, or four, with digging for sources. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing stopping you from creating your draft anyway, even if this article DOES get deleted - so there's no reason to ask for this AfD to be delayed. Carry on with your draft. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable parody eluding to a non-notable, (now defunct), group whose best hope was mere agitation, (unrealized).--John Cline (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of sufficient sources. Flag me if anyone finds multiple WP:RS that focus on this topic in a substantive way, rather than the brief mentions I'm seeing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I see consensus to delete Ornella Sizzi, but limited discussion on the others. With respect to them, I'm afraid a separate AFD may be needed. Go Phightins! 04:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ornella Sizzi[edit]

Ornella Sizzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a run-of-the-mill academic, failing WP:NACADEMIC. The society she is a member of does not appear to be a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. Toddst1 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC {I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to be part of an advertising campaign on wikipedia created by the WP:SPA editor related to The Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons and its members:

• Thomas Lyons (surgeon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hugo Ribot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• 'Weak delete part of a group of advertisements, and could be deleted on that basiss, but he has a citation nrecord with two publications having been cited over 200 times (and then 70, ,...) DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Sizzi is a very well known Italian Surgeon, though not as well known in the USA. Perhaps article would be better in Italian version? Weird to go after this article thats been here since 2010 right after she died. Is notable contingent on survival? drewmonda (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2017 — drewmonda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I see you've twice created the advertorial article on the society and created the articles on several members. What's your connection? Toddst1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, with concerns that the article's creator is associated with The Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons. All edits suggest promotional intent and WP:COI. 2601:188:1:AEA0:38D2:7218:4D4F:2BC5 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lacks coverage in reliable sources. The external link that appeared when I reviewed the article is for a doctor who's unrelated to Dr. Sizzi (I have commented it out to make it invisible). The remaining reference is not about Dr. Sizzi, it is an article she co-authored. PKT(alk) 17:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Subject fails notability guidelines by lacking independent coverage in reliable secondary sources.--John Cline (talk) 22:04, 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 speedy delete. WP:SNOW borderline WP:G3 Mkdw ^talk 17:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Conservative Party (Australia)[edit]

United Conservative Party (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No claim to notability, no sources. Could be five blokes in a shed for all we know (and probably is). The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, isn't this Cory Bernardi's group? If so, might still not be notable but isn't just five blokes in a shed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Nope. Cory Bernardi's group is "Australian Majority". The founder of this lot (in Parramatta) has no google hits for anything at all (apart from social media accounts), and their address is a serviced/virtual office. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, Delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete A Google News search of '"United Conservative Party' Australia" returns exactly zero stories about this party. It is also not shown as being a registered political party by the Australian Electoral Commission or NSW Electoral Commission. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOAX. --Nug (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could not find anything at all anywhere to indicate any hint of notability. Just a bit TOOSOON perhaps !? Aoziwe (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Several news outlets have recently profiled the Cory Bernadi-led conservative movement, none of them have mentioned this party. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and everyone else; nothing verifiable here, let alone notable. Frickeg (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant hoax. Mélencron (talk) 02:07, 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 delete. WP:SNOW joe decker^talk 16:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Rose[edit]

Lewis Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable Chief Executive Officer of BakerStone International fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a common name, so it's not easy to find anything about him at all. He appears to be marketing an interesting gizmo to cook pizza on a barbecue or something. Neither that nor his previous work come anywhere near notability. The promotional screed written by his cronies or employees or whatever was mostly unreferenced, and the few references were mostly press releases (it is now much more concise than it was before). There doesn't appear to be any in-depth coverage of this person in anything resembling an independent reliable source. Fails WP:BASIC, fails WP:ANYBIO. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteUtterly no evidence of notability under any standard. Eggishorn (talk)14:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable head of a non-notable company. There's nothing here that constitutes a claim of notability, none of the sources here are in-depth references about him and I couldn't find anything more in a search of available sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a non-notable chief executive of a non-notable company with ten employees. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Falls short of WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 17:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Non-notable ceo. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Polvonov[edit]

Zafar Polvonov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per others in that they don't meet WP:NFOOTY and I haven't seen any other WP:SIGCOV to warrant a stand alone article. Mkdw ^talk 17:48, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bláthnaid McKenna[edit]

Bláthnaid McKenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per OTRS guidelines, if a subject desires an article to be deleted, we offer to make the nomination, without any opinion on the merits. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Article doesn't demonstrate coverage that would seem to meet WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV guidelines, and subject doesn't seem to inherently meet WP:ANYBIO criteria (significant award, enduring historic record, etc). Guliolopez (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not significant enough to mean we absolutely need the article, so we should follow the subjects wish and delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I disagree with the policy being so over-broad, but agree with its application here. The subject is barely notable. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete under WP:BLP1E and a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 17:49, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Miguel Silva[edit]

Rui Miguel Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Disputed notability since 2008. Does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT. XXN, 21:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A quick WP:BEFORE search reveals very little. Considering their career has never resulted in any major wins aside from OnlyOne Racing, which I'm not even sure is a fully professional series, I don't believe they meet WP:NMOTORSPORT or WP:SIGCOV. Notability tag since 2008 does seem to indicate that their career has more or less run its course. Mkdw ^talk 17:52, 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 Keep: Notability sufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR #3 has been established. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Krykorka[edit]

Ian Krykorka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Disputed notability since 2008. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. XXN, 21:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, however, that an IP added a list of book reviews in "real" journals sufficient to establish notability about 2 months after the notability tag was added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added 2 reviews of his books to the half-dozen already in the article, which needs editing into more normative format. Widely-reviewed books confer notability on an author. Keep and remove the obsolete notability tag.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, plenty of reviews of his books, some listed in the article, BookList - "Direct references to the baby Jesus make this a good choice for observant Christian families, while families seeking multicultural holiday stories will appreciate this non-American view of tradition." and Horn Book (as usual, short and sweet:)) - "The mixed-media illustrations are striking, but the artist's technique makes both interior and exterior scenes appear windy--perhaps in keeping with the long-winded text." also reviewed Carl, School Library Journal - "Consider Silver Moon only where folk and fairy tales are very popular.", and ForeWord Magazine (may not be useable?) - "While the vocabulary choices are too sophisticated and the sentences too long for beginning readers, the storytelling is rich, humorous, and easy to follow when read by a parent or teacher." also reviewed Silver Moon. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well-reviewed author, meets WP:NAUTHOR. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It's not the ideal case of WP:NAUTHOR but they seem to just squeak by. Mkdw ^talk 17:53, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Haddad[edit]

Fadi Haddad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Disputed notability since 2008. Several references were provided, but the subject of this article is not described in details in these sources, it's only mentioned in pass, and this does not guarantee notability. XXN, 21:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - (music) video directors are run of the mill - we almost always delete such BLPs. That this article is poorly sourced is further argument. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete music video directors are inherently non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moths of Whitley County Indiana[edit]

Moths of Whitley County Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article seems highly unnecessary and out of keeping with other taxonomic lists. Whitley County is a small area, whereas lists such as this only tend to cover entire countries, with the exception of Moths of Riccarton Bush, which is notable in that entomologists have famously studied there. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 21:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too small-scale, and completely unsourced. Presumably someone's private mothing list.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That was my thought, too. It does just seem like a list of moths in his area. I daresay WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. Delete 15:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced and likely either original research or plagiarism if a source exists. Too small a scale to be encyclopedic to boot. Plantdrew (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of WP:LISTN being met Spiderone 21:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am new to Wikipedia and am not sure how to reply correctly. I added sources. There is no easy way to find the moths of a certain area, range maps are often vague and not always accurate. I hoped this would allow one to more easily see what species have been found in this area by including my own observations along with the other sources. I would not expect you to be able to tell that there are some important records here of rare species because you are probably not knowledgeable on topic of moths. I am still planning to add more data and sources if it is not deleted. Hope this helps - User:Mothman27, creator of this article. —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia! I recommend you read a few guidelines, firstly, WP:OR, which explains in detail why original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. As such, you cannot add your own observations to an article, because all material must be backed up by reliable, published sources. Therefore, whether your article contains records of rare species or not, you cannot include that information unless you have a reliable, published source. Secondly, Wikipedia has a long list of notability guidelines for different types of article. If an article's subject fails to pass the relevant notability guideline, its article should not be created (in the vast majority of cases). The general guideline is found here: WP:N (you'll find links to other notability guidelines here) and I especially recommend you read WP:LISTN (list articles). Please also take a look at WP:NOT for "what Wikipedia is not". -- Pingumeister^(talk) 00:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree with above comments from Pingumeister and others. The list is not a good fit for Wikipedia--too narrow in scope and (I suspect) too much original research. The data presented could be useful but would really work better as part of an interactive database, not a static list in an encyclopedia--take a look here [[3]].Glendoremus (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read the recommended pages. I feel that WP:LOCAL applies to some extent. If someone in my area is interested in finding what moths live here but they are not a bug expert, they would not know of the bug websites and they might try Wikipedia. It is a fairly comprehensive list and I am not done with it. Would you recommend I submit ALL my sightings to BAMONA and then source every page for each species? Should I add all my sightings and sources to the List of butterflies and moths of Indiana page? Or create a 'Northern Indiana Moths' page to make it more general?Glendoremus, are you recommending submitting all my sightings to BAMONA and not recording them on Wikipedia at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothman27 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I understand your sentiment, and while it is good of you to be looking for a place to directly record your sightings, Wikipedia is not it. I appreciate your boldness (see WP:BOLD) and you have perfectly good intentions, but in order to stick to its principles, Wikipedia is built upon core content policies, and in this case, verifiability and "no original research" are breached. I have no doubt that you are updating Wikipedia with information that is true, but your data is not verifiable. If you post sightings to some other user-edited site and cite that site here, that is still dodgy – user-edited sites are not usually verifiable and are usually considered unreliable sources. What Glendoremus is suggesting is that you post your sightings to a different website which is more suited to the job. Of course, I have no intention of discouraging you from contributing to Wikipedia. Continue to be bold, but learn about the policies and guidelines as you go! -- Pingumeister^(talk) 13:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The question of weather this list might be useful to some is of no relevance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a field guide, database of statistics, scientific journal, etc. Wikipedia cannot and should not serve as a repository of all data in existence. County level searches can be performed on existing sources such as BugGuide, BAMONA, and other alternative outlets. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:22, 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 Snow keep, no chance of success. Fram (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

List of Luxembourg women's international footballers[edit]

List of Luxembourg women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnecessary list... Also no notability has been established. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons:[reply]

List of Austria women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Croatia women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Czech Republic women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Estonia women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of France women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Germany women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of England women's international footballers (alphabetical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of New Zealand women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Pakistan women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. People representing their countries at full international level in a widely-covered sport. Bizarre nomination. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yeah ... I don't understand this at all. What is the difference between this and the equivalent pages for the men's teams? Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why is List of Luxembourg international footballers worth keeping, but not a women's list? Froztbyte (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. As creator of one, and per all above keeps. Sort of list I use all the time, contains quick reference and additional information to categories and concerns notable subjects. To nominate under premise 'notability has not been established ' is spurious given that every person listed nominally passes notability criteria under WP.footyn - certainly on the lists I use. Also fail to see why list these and not the equivalent men's lists; except the almost certainty that the men's list nominations would likely be snow closed ClubOranje^T 05:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all A list of notable individuals representing their nation at the top level for their sports. All could easily become featured lists, and aid navigation with the categories, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:11, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Men's 100 metre backstroke[edit]

Swimming at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Men's 100 metre backstroke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a remarkable nor notable tournament. Also notability is not stated and it relies on rehasing one reference. I support a deletion or a merge. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating these following articles for the same reasons:

Swimming at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Women's 100 metre freestyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Swimming at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Women's 400 metre individual medley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Maccabiah Games is quite notable tournament, being the third-largest sporting event in the world behind the Olympics and the Asian Games. [4]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – notability of the Games is dubious. Even more dubious is dedicated articles for results and even more dubious still is specific dated results for certain events. Sports spam that doesn't warrant its own article. Laurdecl ^talk 09:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be dubious, if this is third-largest sporting event in the world? Look here: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. And it's enough to look at the article about games Maccabiah Games Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the the "third largest" sporting event in the world. The Olympics (both editions) and the World Cup are in the top 3. This event is a minor event with a lot of non-notable athletes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am basing on the article Maccabiah Games and it's references. Also, World Cup is a one sport event. Here we're talking about multisport event. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per Arthistorian1977 - the games are well-established and well-cited, and medal wins often cited in the media and especially in obituaries of former athletes. Whether it's the third, fourth, or fifth-largest sports competition is irrelevant. It's big is why it's notable. That it's Jewish is important. As a procedural matter, a whole-scale discussion is inappropriate, and could risk a dangerous precedent. I might favor the merger of one or two of these stubs, but I'd prefer a separate discussion at a merger board. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a notable competition, based on the breadth and scope of reliable and verifiable sources, as cited above by other editors. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Alansohn (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The tournament is clearly notable, nominator's statements nonwithstanding. The entire basis for this AfD is irrelevant, and as such should be closed. Smartyllama (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep/Merge - looks suspiciously like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I would support a keep although I am also open to a merge. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:38, 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 speedy delete. Deleted as copyvio. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthritis in terms of ayurveda[edit]

Arthritis in terms of ayurveda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an essay, not a Wikipedia Article. It's unreferenced so as far as I know, it's based on Original Research. PROD was declined by page author. Would support a WP:SNOW delete. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with fire - To their credit though, it may not be OR. At least some of it is copyvio from https://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/basics/gout.html, and http://ayurveda-foryou.com/treat/fibromyalgia.html, and... at this point I'm going to nominate for speedy. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Exemplo347 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if the speedy is contested, very much WP:NOT. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per the copyvio concerns. Hardly an article by any means, really. Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 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 Law enforcement in Monaco. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Police of Monaco[edit]

Police of Monaco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is already a more developed article on this subject at Law enforcement in Monaco. Deprodded without rationale. I would say merge, but there's no cited material here to merge into the other article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Law enforcement in Monaco seems a nice solution to me. There's nothing much to merge, no. Yintan  21:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Law enforcement in Monaco. Maybe the picture could be used, but there's not really any content. Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to FIRS Inline Hockey World Championships. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2002 FIRS Men's Inline Hockey World Championships[edit]

2002 FIRS Men's Inline Hockey World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

2007 FIRS Men's Inline Hockey World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008 FIRS Men's Inline Hockey World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge World Championships of a sport are deemed notable. However maybe merging into one article with results would be more appropriate? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Limited merge of any non-trivial details not already included to FIRS Inline Hockey World Championships. The rest is over-detailed cruft. The articles are unreferenced so anything that is merged will need sources found. Template:FIRS Inline Hockey World Championships is looking like it could do deletion too so I've nominated that. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Nepal[edit]

List of wars involving Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing of value here. WP:LISTCRUFT plain and simple. No sources, no linking templates (unless you count ((help me))) Was de-proded without explination. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Though rudimentary and WP:IMPERFECT, it appears to be a bona fide member of Category:Lists of wars by country and as the main list for, you guessed it, Category:Wars involving Nepal. Keep Through his mistaken use of the talk page template ((help me)), the article creator appears to have been asking for help with his list. Of course, what he got was something very different. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - clearly notable subject, current state of article is adequate, no reason to delete that I can see. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:LISTN [10][11] and Category:Lists of wars by country shows that a consensus that this type of list is useful is well established. Lack of cited sources is surmountable, and lack of templates (?) is not a rationale for deletion, nor is the inexperience of the article creator. – Joe (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this is standard type of article, see for example: List of wars involving Spain and many others. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs a lot of work, but that's not the point. The subject is notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The Himalayan Tibet/Chinese/Indian/Nepal interface has produced a larger array of military history relevant subjects than are here - needs keep and further development JarrahTree 01:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- A harmless little article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay -- not a policy based argument for deletion. The topic is likely widely covered and cited by other encyclopedias and meets our criteria for WP:LISTN. Mkdw ^talk 17:55, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Patterson (ice hockey)[edit]

James Patterson (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE sources. No longer meets WP:NHOCKEY standards. Yosemiter (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't meet NHOCKEY and did not find any relevant sources that would meet GNG. Admittedly his relatively common name may mean there are some sources buried deep within a Google search, but given a fairly unremarkable career that doesn't seem too likely. Rlendog (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I tried to find any criteria to keep the page, but there aren't any I could find. He has been inactive for a while, and a Google search found nothing natable. Bill McKenna (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 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 merge to List of Greyhawk deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kord (Greyhawk)[edit]

Kord (Greyhawk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Greyhawk deities. Minor D&D deity with no non-primary, reliable sources. The only info currently present on the master Deity list is just the link back to this page, so a merge is appropriate. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redirect optional - No non-primary sources. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising, not even round-about advertising written by brand-loyal fans. Grayfell (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. I am not convinced by Grayfell's worries. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:59, 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 merge to List of Greyhawk deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al'Akbar[edit]

Al'Akbar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into List of Greyhawk deities. Guinness323 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Greyhawk deities. Yet another minor D&D deity with no reliable, non-primary sources. He already has a fleshed out section in that list, so a redirect is sufficient. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect as above, unless some reliable third-party sources can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge - No independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benimaru Itoh[edit]

Benimaru Itoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

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

I'm not seeing much independent notability for being an illustrator, outside of a primary sourced exhibit announcement. Pinging video game Wikiproject as they might find better notability for his work.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not WP:GNG, nor qualifies under Notability > People > "Creative professionals" (WP:ARTIST/WP:CREATIVE). Appears only in listing-type sources; could find no major independent source with more than passing mention. DonFB (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable WP:BLP appearing in listing-type sources and the article fails the WP:GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, leaning towards weak delete - I found this link which isn't exactly significant coverage, but it is something, and I have a hunch that there could be coverage in offline sources. Searching his name in Japanese is difficult as my Japanese is not at a high level of fluency, but what I could find isn't promising. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:09, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gastis[edit]

Peter Gastis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the AISL might be fully pro. However, this has not been established in the eight intervening months. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails NFOOTY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Perri[edit]

Dino Perri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the AISL might be fully pro. However, this has not been established in the eight intervening months. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:12, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oman at the 2006 FEI World Equestrian Games[edit]

Oman at the 2006 FEI World Equestrian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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 [12], "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) 18:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – useless sports spam and statistics that will probably never be looked at by anyone. Laurdecl ^talk 09:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Also looking at some of the individual pages, many of the results have not even been tabulated. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Smartyllama (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom Spiderone 14:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left to dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Philippine men's national basketball team major competition results. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines at the FIBA Basketball World Cup[edit]

Philippines at the FIBA Basketball World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced and the information is already found at the Philippines men's national basketball team page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or redirect - it is almost certain that a Pinoy or Filipino will be seeking this information, using this search term in English Wikipedia, because basketball is essentially their national sport (even the smallest barangay has a b-court and it's obsessively watched on national TV) and English (or Taglish)is becoming the lingua franca there. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to what article? Redirect to what article? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I'd go along with a redirect to Philippines men's national basketball team#FIBA World Cup or National team appearances in the FIBA Basketball World Cup#Comprehensive team results, or 1954 FIBA World Championship, when they earned the bronze. Another action would be to merge to one of those three, with a special mention of Carlos Loyzaga. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Per Bearian. It's a plausible search term, but isn't notable in its own right. Smartyllama (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to subsection per above. Laurdecl ^talk 01:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Philippine men's national basketball team major competition results. The article about the national team is already too long and has too many tables. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christ For The Nations Association of Bible Schools[edit]

Christ For The Nations Association of Bible Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable bible school lacking non-trivial support. Per the talk page, "The purpose of this Wikipedia Page is to inform the public about the Christ For The Nations Association of Bible Schools. Currently the organization has 64 Bible Schools around the world and by creating this page and listing the various schools, it will allow the schools to create their own Wikipedia pages by creating links to their own websites." A google search on the name provides little support for the organization. Appears to be more of an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. reddogsix (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotional article written by an editor with a blatant COI. No apparent coverage in independent sources. – Joe (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. First off, it's poorly sourced - every citation is to their own website or a privately-published paper source that has no ISBN nor a ISSN. Secondly, it reeks of soapboxing - the part about rejecting government accreditation especially. Finally, its purpose seems to be to use a non-sectatarian private charity as its own sectarian religious website - folks would surely reject their demands to put free adverts on Girl Scout cookie boxes. The same idea applies here. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails notability test. I couldn't find anything about it online apart from its own site, nor about the schools listed in the "Listing of schools" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Potential Keep -- An article on an association of 64 Bible Schools, some of which are locally accredited, stokes me as likely to be notable. The fact that the mother school has not got such accreditation in US does not alter that. However this is a bad article, and the lack of articles (at least linked ones) on any of the other schools makes me wonder if any are really notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I agree with Bearian, noting on the talk page, the main author of the page doesn't convince me otherwise. I also agree that the article potentially could be kept if the issues were dealt with, but I'm not sure they can/will. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ThreatConnect[edit]

ThreatConnect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sources are clear published and republished PR advertising and there's simply no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else especially since policy WP:NOT applies. When an article has to overblatantly focus with advertising information like this, it shows there's simply no genuine substance. Worse, it emphasizes it since not only the fact this is barely 5 years old, but the sheer fact the sources are literally mirrored PR. Even with the now made improvements, it's still not enough to satisfy our pillar policies for advertising. SwisterTwister talk 18:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - please look it up, WP:N seems to be clearly given here. E.g. see these: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], ... --Fixuture (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Half of those were simply announcements, event listings of how they were involved and other trivial matters; there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else simply because of news stories. Also, which actual policy would allow article's existence alone? SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Keep - clearly notable and passes WP:ORG: plenty of non-trivial coverage in available sources. Also passes WP:AUD, with coverage from national and international sources, including The Guardian, Washington Post, Fortune, Bloomberg. Stickee (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. They have been involved in such extremely important recent events, that this article makes sense, despite most sources not really being substantially about the company. We can make exceptions when it helps the reader. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ConsumerTrack Inc[edit]

ConsumerTrack Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Clear advertising as not only is the history showing clear COI advertising but everything here is naturally only targeted advertising with published and republished PR announcements, and that's exactly what searches found thus nothing to sensibly accept in our policies against advertising or against any company webhosting at all. Especially when an article goes to the lengths of sourcing each sentence and paragraph with a PR source, simply to make it seem as if it's acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 18:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Purely promotional. Nothing notable about subject. Created by SPA account. As nom stated, most of references are press releases or don't mention subject at all. New searches produces nothing new. CBS527^Talk 18:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too promotional to keep. Any borderline notability should await a non-SPA interested in the subject. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption (film)[edit]

Assumption (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable film, no reliable second-part or third-party coverage, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 16:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now due to lack of coverage from multiple reliable sources. Rue Morgue highlights the movie here, but it seems mainly promotional rather than a review per se. If this film is released, and there are reviews from reliable sources, then the article can be recreated. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This doesn't seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. I agree that the Rue Morgue source looks more like promotional material than anything else. If the article creator wanted, we could move this to draft space, where it will be relatively safe from deletion. It's possible this film will satisfy our inclusion criteria later. All these articles about Brian Patrick Butler look poorly sourced and probably too soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:28, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rewilding the gut[edit]

Rewilding the gut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Google search shows that this phrase is found in one book, and as such does not satisfy general notability. Promotional intent of an article is not taken into account in deleting, and this article appears to be promotional, but notability is considered and is missing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per NEO, unless there's some significant usage somewhere, but I'm not seeing it. TimothyJosephWood 16:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A really interesting phrase, I'd guess that it will gain some use as time goes on. But I don't see that the notability of the phrase is supported by any of the citations given. I could find the phrase used by Sonnenberg et al in their 2014 paper published in Cell Metabolism on "Starving our Microbial Self" [23] and once by the same authors in "Diet-induced extinction in the gut microbiota compounds over generations" that was published in January 2016 in Nature [24]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - only used once ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisionally delete. All the comments above are about whether the expression "rewilding the gut" has sufficient use, but that is not really the right question to consider. That expression is evidently a neologism which has had far too little coverage to in itself justify an article, but it is a mistake to assess this deletion nomination on the basis of whether that expression is notable: we should assess it on the basis of whether the concept referred to by that expression is notable. (We have an article Julius Caesar because the man referred to by that name is notable, not because the name itself is notable.) In other words, the right question is not "Does the expression 'Rewilding the gut' have widespread coverage?", but "Does the process of process re-introducing lost and introducing new micro-organisms into people's guts have widespread coverage?" The best I can say about that is that (1) the article at present and its references don't provide evidence that it does, and (2) I have not been able to find evidence that it does anywhere else. Most of the references, while covering various issues relating to loss of gut micro-organisms, do not actually mention the idea of adding back lost micro-organisms. At best, the article "The ‘hygiene hypothesis’ for autoimmune and allergic diseases: an update" by H Okada, C Kuhn, H Feillet, and J-F Bach, briefly mentions the idea, but gives no substantial coverage of it. There is therefore no evidence that the concept satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, I am marking my "delete" as provisional, as it is possible that there may be substantial coverage, which is not included in the article's references and which have not been found in searches because they are referred to under other names, not "rewilding". If there is significant coverage, I hope it can be found before this discussion is closed, but if there isn't then the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, and the article should be deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: fecal microbiota transplant might be at least an example of "rewilding the gut". --HyperGaruda (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT and JamesBWatson. It's a notable topic, just not called this weasel term. Yes, microbial repopulation, fecal microbiota transplant, and the hygiene hypothesis are real. This concept itself is fringey, although gaining some scientific acceptance. However, this is not the crap (pardon the pun) we want on Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, superseding my "provisionally delete" above. This essentially duplicates the topic of the article Fecal microbiota transplant, and actually could be speedily deleted for that reason, in my opinion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revation Systems[edit]

Revation Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Plain language version: this company is not "notable" in the Wikipedia meaning of the term. As a consequence, it is not a topic suitable for inclusion. Notability should be demonstrated by reliable sources, independent of the subject, describing it in detail (those are cumulative conditions), but I did not find any.

Wikispeak version: fails WP:ORG and GNG. Best I found is [25] and businesswire is (from my experience) little more than a press-release megaphone.

This was prodded and deleted, then restored by Ad Orientem (ping) following a help desk request to keep working on it. I think a restoration to the Draft: space would have been better, but since I see no source at all I do not think even that is warranted. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unambiguous advert. Nothing to support wp:GNG or wp:CORP. DonFB (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I was planning on sending all three of these articles to AfD on Wednesday or Thursday at the latest barring a level of improvement that I think very unlikely. There are a lot of things you can fix, but notability is not one of them. It's either there or it's not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable spam. Same for the similar two articles, if someone nominates them here. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I am taking the liberty of copying the below comment/question from the talk page to here. The user is a new editor and self identified COI. See this discussion on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So none of these article count as cited sources for notability?

1. RCR Wireless News: November 22, 2016: NFV, SDN deployments driving cloud security to session-oriented awareness http://www.rcrwireless.com/20161122/telco-cloud/nfv-sdn-deployments-driving-cloud-security-session-oriented-awareness-tag2-tag99

2. RCR Wireless News: November 17, 2016: Security remains significant hurdle for industry cloud efforts http://www.rcrwireless.com/20161117/telco-cloud/security-remains-significant-hurdle-industry-cloud-efforts-tag2-tag99

3. Health IT Outcomes, July 6, 2016: Healthcare Security Depends on More Than File Encryption http://www.healthitoutcomes.com/doc/healthcare-security-depends-on-more-than-file-encryption-0001

4. Heath System CIO, June 29, 2016: Daryl Kallevig, CIO, Riverwood Healthcare Center, Chapter 2 http://healthsystemcio.com/2016/06/29/daryl-kallevig-cio-riverwood-healthcare-center-chapter-2/

5. Healthcare DIVE, July 26, 2016: 7 strategies for making the most of a lean workforce http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/7-strategies-for-making-the-most-of-a-lean-workforce/423274/

6. Tech World News: May 5, 2016: Aging at Home, Part 1: Home May Be Where the Technology Is http://www.technewsworld.com/story/83454.html

7. Tech World News: May 6, 2016: Aging at Home, Part 2: Some Tech to Watch Over Me http://www.technewsworld.com/story/83467.html

8. Patient Engagement HIT, April 29, 2016: Easier Appointment Scheduling Can Boost Patient Access to Care http://patientengagementhit.com/news/easier-appointment-scheduling-can-boost-patient-access-to-care

9. Computer World, April 20, 2016: New CMS initiative a pivotal point in primary care: http://www.computerworld.com/article/3054778/healthcare-it/new-cms-initiative-a-pivotal-point-in-primary-care-market.html

10. Healthcare Informatics, March 22, 2012: Versatile Communication Platform Helps Foster Collaborative Care http://www.healthcare-informatics.com/article/cloud-based-communication

11. TMCnet.com. April 8, 2008: The State of Minnesota Deploys LinkLive for 12 Contact Centers and Agencies http://www.tmcnet.com/enews/e-newsletters/Customer-Interaction-Solutions/20080408/24767-state-minnesota-deploys-linklive-12-contact-centers-agencies.htm

Melissa8051 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Below are my assessments of the media articles listed above. In my opinion, only one (www.rcrwireless.com/20161122) might support "notability." The others could be used to support "content" in a Wikipedia article, but not the notability of the subject. The Wikipedia "General notability guideline" (WP:N) states: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. http://www.rcrwireless.com/20161122/telco-cloud/nfv-sdn-deployments-driving-cloud-security-session-oriented-awareness-tag2-tag99 Legitimate interview w/CEO Perry Price http://www.rcrwireless.com/20161117/telco-cloud/security-remains-significant-hurdle-industry-cloud-efforts-tag2-tag99 Single brief mention of company name & CEO Price, with his quotation http://www.healthitoutcomes.com/doc/healthcare-security-depends-on-more-than-file-encryption-0001 Single brief mention of company name and CEO Perry Price http://healthsystemcio.com/2016/06/29/daryl-kallevig-cio-riverwood-healthcare-center-chapter-2/ Product endorsement by a client (disqualified as "affiliated" in Wikipedia terminology) http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/7-strategies-for-making-the-most-of-a-lean-workforce/423274/ Single brief mention of company name & CEO Price with his quotation http://www.technewsworld.com/story/83454.html Single brief mention of CEO Price and company name with his quotation http://www.technewsworld.com/story/83467.html Single brief mention of CEO Price and company name, w/his quotation http://patientengagementhit.com/news/easier-appointment-scheduling-can-boost-patient-access-to-care Single brief mention of company name http://www.computerworld.com/article/3054778/healthcare-it/new-cms-initiative-a-pivotal-point-in-primary-care-market.html Single brief mention of company name -- "such as..." http://www.healthcare-informatics.com/article/cloud-based-communication Single parenthetical mention of company name http://www.tmcnet.com/enews/e-newsletters/Customer-Interaction-Solutions/20080408/24767-state-minnesota-deploys-linklive-12-contact-centers-agencies.htm Announcement article of client installation of company product DonFB (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Melissa8051: an important thing to note is that even one good source is much better than a lot of disputable ones for notability. Here, trusting DonFB's analysis above, the only real source is an interview with the CEO. Interviews, even in reputable sources, are usually in the grey zone when it comes to evaluating notability. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem Contining the discussion, I appreciate all of the feedback from everyone on this page. In response to your feedback and clarification I have found some more "notable" articles that talk about Revation Systems in depth within the past years. Considering interviews, I have also found an interview in which CEO Perry Price talks about Revation Systems in depth in the beginning of the interview. I hope these are more of what you are looking for and these can be used. If notability is achieved, please advise me on where to go from there. Thank you.

1. The Entrepreneur Way: 3 Things That You Should Have Done 60 Days Ago with Perry Price Founder of Revation Systems http://theentrepreneurway.com/podcast/211-3-things-that-you-should-have-done-60-days-ago-with-perry-price-founder-of-revation-systems/ (Interview with CEO Perry Price)

2. PR Newswire: January 5, 2012: Revation Systems Launches an Accessible Virtual Care Solution for Healthcare Organizations http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/revation-systems-launches-an-accessible-virtual-care-solution-for-healthcare-organizations-136734838.html

3. Business Wire: March 1, 2016: North Memorial Health Care Partners with Revation Systems to Improve Customer Engagement and Population Health Management http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160301005037/en/North-Memorial-Health-Care-Partners-Revation-Systems

4. Tech{dot}MN: April 23, 2012: Revation finds a revelation in healthcare http://tech.mn/news/2012/04/23/revation-systems-linklive-healthcare/

5. PR Web: April 2, 2014: Revation Systems Acquires North Light Software to Simplify Community Care Delivery and Coordination http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/04/prweb11728895.htm

6. EWorld Wire: April 7, 2008: Revation Systems announces The State of Minnesota Linkage Line Network Deployed LinkLive for 12 contact Centers and Agencies http://www.eworldwire.com/pressreleases/18353

7. MobiHealth News: September 29, 2011: Revation pushes unified communications on consumer-grade devices http://www.mobihealthnews.com/13502/revation-pushes-unified-communications-on-consumer-grade-devices

• • Also, it might be advisable for the other two pages to be merged into this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revation_LinkLive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revation_Communicator

Thoughts? Thanks!

Melissa8051 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

They are all public relations/promotional outlets. Note the "PR" in the "prnewswire" and "prweb" internet addresses.

For example:

And:

The Wikipedia "notability" guideline explicitly mentions "press releases" as sources that fail to meet requirements. The outlets listed cannot be considered "independent of the subject" in the sense intended by Wikipedia instructions. They are promotional.

Every business has its ups and downs, its failures and successes. The uniformly boosterish, cheerleading coverage in the cited articles demonstrates the reality that these outlets are nothing more than vehicles to help their subjects drum up business.

Notability guidance also talks about a subject having "attracted attention." I suppose it could be argued that the company has attracted the attention of these promotional media outlets by virtue of its presence in the business world and in its particular niche. The clear promotional intent of these outlets, however, belies the idea that they are independent reliable sources.

At present, the Revation Systems article is tiny--what Wikipedia calls a "stub," as seen in the label at the bottom of the page. Perhaps it could be further argued that the article is so small that no harm is done. Every "stub" label, however, encourages editors to expand such articles. In the case of what I believe to be an obvious advertisement, that's a problem. DonFB (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- A7 material which also manages to be spammy. Wikipedia is not a place to host materials of promotional nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Both the sources provided and those found searching for "Revation Systems" are mostly trivial mentions that does not live up to WP:CORPDEPTH. Thus, failing WP:NCORP, this is a WP:DEL8 case. — Sam Sailor 16:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Lean to delete. Certainly the articles on individual products should go first: Revation LinkLive is nothing but a release history, and Revation Communicator not even that. Almost all the sources are corporate promotion. W Nowicki (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phoeniciology[edit]

Phoeniciology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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