< 10 March	12 March >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fascinating Woman: The Temptation of Creampie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A promotional page for a subject that does not meet WP:NFILM. No encyclopedically relevant content as to film's importance or impact on the popular culture. "Eights Best Film" is not a significant award.

The article survived a prior AfD in 2010 (with a no-consensus close), but is not better for it, as it still reads like a directory listing. I believe that six years on it's an appropriate time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Should've been deleted 7 years ago however hopefully we'll reach the correct outcome this time, Anyway No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 03:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The claimed "eighth place" award is not a major award for some aspect of excellence in filmmaking, as required by NFILM, and there is no evidence this particular film meets GNG requirements. As I wrote in the initial AFD, "no coverage shown in reliable independent sources. The Pink Grand Prix is a readers' poll conducted by "PG" (perhaps "P*G") magazine, a publication of no established notability. According to this news article [1], cited as a reliable source in the article on the award itself, "PG" is a "fanzine," or fan magazine. Reader polls, whether for print or online publications, generally aren't seen as establishing notability unless the publication is clearly notable (if then), and when they are, only the first place finisher is generally seen as having its own notability established by the poll. The film's article is sourced only to a comprehensive listing of produced films, which establishes only existence but not notability, and to the fanzine's own website, which lacks the independence required to establish notability". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This clearly isn't notable for any reason. The award it has won is not significant and coverage in secondary sources is scant. Imalawyer (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert Kelly (political analyst)[edit]

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

Doing an official AfD as author attempted to manually create one. (see diff). ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment – As author attempted to create this AfD, would it fall under WP:G7 instead?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - WP:1EVENT reddogsix (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I created Robert E. Kelly before discovering the other article. — fnielsen (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was actually trying to redirect the original article Robert Kelly (BBC interviewee) to the appropriate Robert Kelly (political analyst) and keep the Article for Deletion tag, not create the tag. I object the deletion because the event is being heavily cited as case study in racism, and as the third article by the above comment mentioned (and should have a merge tag), he's widely cited expert on Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clnup (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - the merger/redirect has made this discussion moot. The subject is clearly notable, even aside the notoriety from the BBC video, based on general notability. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I knew who this guy was before he went viral. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - clearly notable as Korea expert. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 23:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - As the individual concerned already has several notably points, not just recent BBC interview, he was being interviewed because an expert.Johnkn63 (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – Does not meet criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Just because he is interviewed by journalists (with or without his family) does not make him notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Same with above opinion.--Altostratus (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG probably even before the BBC coverage which simply brought an already notable person to our attention. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, (does in fact meet WP:ACADEMIC), despite the interview. But the interview has a fame of its own which justifies it being included in the article.--Smerus (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does he meet WP:ACADEMIC???--Jack Upland (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criterion 7, as I note in my suggestion below to Keep the article. Sumana Harihareswara 05:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep — fnielsen (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep -- meets criterion 7 of WP:ACADEMIC as an expert who "is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" (specifically, Korea) and thus has "made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". Sumana Harihareswara 05:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are many "experts" on Korea who are interviewed in the media: Dave Kang, Adam Cathcart, Aidan Foster-Carter, John Delury, Leonid Petrov, Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt etc. But they don't have articles. And they shouldn't. Talking heads are hardly notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Meets criterion 7 of WP:ACADEMIC and clearly passes WP:GNG. Not a BLP1E as he was notable as a respected analyst before the interview.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep He is certainly a notable academic, and this article references numerous reliable sources.RajasthanSab (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SOFTDELETE – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mario Cavaliere[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Has apparently published one book, Vergessen, but I can't find any media reviews, only book sellers' ads and the very local award now referenced in the article. PROD contested without explanation. Favonian (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peyton Elizabeth Lee[edit]

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

Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NACTOR with only one major role in a Disney Channel series that has yet to premiere (even though it is available for viewing outside of the network). The sources in the article give only small mentions of her, which is not enough to establish overall notability per WP:GNG. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete – Clearly WP:TOOSOON. One lede role on a Disney Channel series which hasn't even premiered yet gets you nowhere near past WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up: All three refs used at the article are much more about the TV series, Andi Mack – Lee herself only gets passing mention in all three, with no real bio details. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: Article created by a now indef'ed socker. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated by IJBall. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of the names of children who died at the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home[edit]

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

The children themselves are not individually notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. WP:MEMORIAL. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps this list would be better as a wikisource as a historical document since the information is from birth records. Although, I just reviewed some the "List" articles on Wikipedia and there are many lists constituted of individual elements that are not notable (by a certain interpretation). I'm not sure this list is different from other existing lists. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

multiple national sources (I cited two in the list article) have deemed the list to be notable enough to publish. If it is notable enough for them it seems logical that it would be notable for Wikipedia. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTMEMORIAL and just a copy/paste from two source articles. No evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Yes, WP:NOTMEMORIAL exists, but while none of the children are individually notable, for obvious reasons, the circumstances of their deaths and subsequent interments are indeed notable, the issue is very much a live one in Ireland and elsewhere, and the list will prove useful to further researchers, at least in the short to medium term. Given WP:IAR and WP:NOTPAPER, I recommend retention. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- An article discussing the topics you've mentioned already exists Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home, which is notable. This list of names is not notable and is what wikipedia is not. Ajf773 (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. While the topic of the deaths is encyclopedic, the list of names is not. Pburka (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete (or merge/redirect) - per nom and comments from other editors. (The primary subject, as covered in Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home and elsewhere, absolutely meets the relevant notability criteria for WP:EVENT, WP:EFFECT, WP:ORG, etc. The guidelines however do not immediately support a standalone article or articles on the victims. Per WP:VICTIM and WP:BIO1E, people whose notability stems from their association with an event (however appalling) are generally represented in the article on the event.) Guliolopez (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a webhost for others, even for good causes. The list is entirely unsourced. I also agree in particular with Pburka. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - per nom, and per Guliolopez (talk · contribs). I strongly believe these innocents should be memorialized but Wikipedia isn't really the place - Alison ^❤ 09:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash^talk stalk 03:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mollie O'Brien[edit]

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

Page created by banned/blocked user MusicLover650. ~UserDe (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Unfortunate that it was created by a multiple-account user and if this was a brand new article that may be appropriate, but this is an article that has been around a while. I did remove the Grammy win, as the award was only presented to the producer of the album, not the ensemble of musicians.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep – article was not created in violation of a block or ban, has been substantially edited by others, and the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. The G5 argument should be used sparingly, and should only be applied to clear-cut cases. Wikipedia is about the content, not the contributors. Linguist ^talk|contribs 03:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per MUSICBIO #8, and probably a few other criteria on MUSICBIO. South Nashua (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Akari Hoshino[edit]

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

Yet another unsourced blp for a porn performer whose only claim to fame is an in house award that has been shown repeatedly not to confer notability. Blps deserve better than this. Fails gng and the discredited Pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete an article lacking reliable sources. There are those who have in the past lamaneted that Wikipedia has more articles on pornographic film actresses than women poets. That is not true in the American categories, with 1669 articles on women poets and 408 on pornographic film actresses. However in the Japanese case we have 71 articles on women poets and 148 on pornographic film actresses. I think the Am porn actresses cat used to be well over 600, but through application of notability standards has seen unnotable articles removed. I have to admit even there I am not at all convinced all 408 are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot for the life of me understand why a mass media field will have more participants and interest more people. The solution is to create and source, not delete. I understand some people dislike what pornography is about due to various reasons (religion or other) but just like there are notable career criminals and murderers alas there are also notable adult workers. wp:otherstuffexists in the opposite direction does not make that go away.GuzzyG (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sourcing needs the availability of sources that are WP:RELIABLE. Reputable media tend to shun porn while the Internet is flooded with porn-related promotional material. The editors here don't dislike porn. Many of these editors maintain the porn articles while trying to clear out material based on crap sources. Just being a "famous" or "popular" porn star doesn't establish notability for Wikipedia purposes. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just think it's a laughable system that editors who do not speak Japanese nominate a whole bunch of Japanese articles and say no american sources are found while searching a romanized name which the subject would never use as it is not their language, sounds fair, right? Also using significant American porn awards as a justification for notability for someone who participates in Japanese pornography. GuzzyG (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That cuts both ways. If you are going to put badly sourced shit on the English wikipedia bevause you don't speak Japanese to find out if real sources probably exist than maybe don't. By the way none of your arguments address the issue here. Do you have reliable sources for this blp? If you dom't what is your point? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep - She's an actress in the notable film Killer Motel. --Gstree (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The film isn't notable either and should probably be sent to AFD, Also starring in a (non notable) film isn't a free pass to an article, NFILM, PORNBIO and GNG are core policies here all of which she fails . –Davey2010^Talk 17:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Non-notable subject. Fails WP:BIO. Article lacks significant coverage in published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. G-searches in both English and Japanese are turning up nothing to establish notability. The sources in the subject's (星野あかり) Japan Wikipedia article are all PR related. CBS527^Talk 23:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. The claimed awards fail the "well-known and significant" standard. The article provides little to no nontrivial sourcing, and no more appears available. Appearing in a single nn film falls well below the alternative PORNBIO standard, and certainly fails WP:NACTOR. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - non-notable pornography actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chika Arimura[edit]

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

Yet another unsourced blp for a porn performer whose only claim to fame is an in house award that has been shown repeatedly not to confer notability. Blps deserve better than this. Fails gng and the discredited Pornbio. Note that the main win is for the film not her. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete no sources indicate notability. These Japanese articles need to be held to much higher standards of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO, NMUSIC and the GNG. The claimed awards fail the "well-known and significant" standard. The article provides little to no nontrivial sourcing, and no more appears available. Being a member of a nonnotable musical group, and having a bit part in a video game contribute next to nothing to notability, and in the absence of sourcing at least approaching GNG standards would not be sufficient to establish notability anyway. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chisato Shoda[edit]

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

Yet another unsourced blp for a porn performer whose only claim to fame is an in house award that has been shown repeatedly not to confer notability. Blps deserve better than this. Fails gng and the discredited Pornbio. Best lesbian video is not an individual award. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete A link to a non-notable award listing of winners and basic online databases of everyone in an industry are not sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. The claimed awards fail the "well-known and significant" standard. The article provides little to no nontrivial sourcing, and no more appears available. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - non-notable pornography actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haruki Satō[edit]

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

Yet another unsourced blp for a porn performer whose only claim to fame is an in house award that has been shown repeatedly not to confer notability. Blps deserve better than this. Fails gng and the discredited Pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete article lacks sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIOand the GNG. The claimed awards fail the "well-known and significant" standard. The article provides little to no nontrivial sourcing, and no more appears available. Bit part-publicity stunt casting as a voice actress in a video game contributes only infinitesmally to notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - non-notable pornography actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kirara Asuka[edit]

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

Yet another unsourced blp for a porn performer whose only claim to fame is an in house award that has been shown repeatedly not to confer notability. Blps deserve better than this. Fails gng and the discredited Pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 03:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - She's a member of the Ebisu Muscats. --Gstree (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being a member of a band isn't a free pass to an article, She still fails NMUSIC, PORNBIO and GNG which are core policies here. –Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO, NMUSIC and the GNG. The claimed awards fail the "well-known and significant" standard. The article provides little to no nontrivial sourcing, and no more appears available. Being part of a rotating cast of dozens in a porn-performer choir is not being a "reasonably prominent member" of a musical ensemble, and in the absence of sourcing at least approaching GNG standards would not be sufficient to establish notability anyway. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per prior outcomes of the AfDs on pages created by the same editor; see for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsubasa Amami (multi-AfD). Same deficiencies apply here. Being one of the ~50 past and present performers in an ensemble is hardly a signifier for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - non-notable pornography actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Natsuko Kayama[edit]

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

Yet another unsourced blp for a porn performer whose only claim to fame is an in house award that has been shown repeatedly not to confer notability. Blps deserve better than this. Fails gng and the discredited Pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 03:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. I can find nothing explaining what the "Weekly Popular" award is given for, but there's nothing supporting the argument that it meets the well-known and significant standard in the applicable SNGs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - non-notable pornography actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yū Kawakami[edit]

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

Yet another unsourced blp for a porn performer whose only claim to fame is an in house award that has been shown repeatedly not to confer notability. Blps deserve better than this. Fails gng and the discredited Pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per prior outcomes of the AfDs on pages created by the same editor; see for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsubasa Amami (multi-AfD). Same deficiencies apply here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 03:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Despite the article's claim, the subject apparently did not win a "Best Actress" award; the cited source says she won a "mature" actress/MILF award, which by established consensus would be a niche award insufficient to demonstrate notability. In any event, the award involved is given by a broadcaster to promote its own programming, and by consensus does not contribute materially to notability, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - She's an actress in the notable non-porno film Operation Love. --Gstree (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A credit as "Classmate" in one episode of a TV series does not appear to rise to the "featured" criterion in WP:PORNBIO or the "significant roles" standard in WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - non-notable pornography actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yuzuka Kinoshita[edit]

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

Yet another unsourced blp for a porn performer whose only claim to fame is an in house award that has been shown repeatedly not to confer notability. Blps deserve better than this. Fails gng and the discredited Pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete for lack of sources and notability. The ja.wiki article is equally unconvincing. Sorry to say, but articles created by Special:Contributions/Gstree should be routinely deleted "per prior outcomes". See for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsubasa Amami (multi-AfD). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. No real claim of notability, negligible sourcing. Established practice is that while an award like "Best Program" might support the notability of the program, it does not per se establish the notability of performers appearing in the "program". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 03:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#G4. postdlf (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of postcodes in Victoria[edit]

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

Topic was deleted previously during more than one AfD discussion under the title List of postcodes in Victoria (Australia), this one has been created without the (Australia) part. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory Ajf773 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - per nom and per previous AfDs (WP:NOTDIR) Spiderone 22:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOTDIR, and my reasoning at the last AfD. This article would seem to qualify for deletion under WP:CSD#G4, so I've tagged it appropriately. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator never intended to delete the article, simply contest its title. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicholas Tchkotoua[edit]

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

Wrong page title. Moving it to Prince Nicholas Tchkotoua Carolinedesuisse (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Nicholas Tchkotoua Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas TchkotouaCarolinedesuisse (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per WP:TITLESINTITLES. You've also gone about this in the wrong way, blanking content and copypasting it to Prince Nicholas Tchkotoua as opposed to a redirect. But Nicholas Tchkotoua is the correct article title. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have restored the article, which had been blanked. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and redirect Prince Nicholas Tchkotoua to it. In this context "Prince" may be treated the same way as "sir" for British knights, where convention is the article of Sir AB is at AB, unless Sir is useful to disambiguate. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Digital Mind[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Recently published book, no secondary sources in the article (and none found in a good-faith search), and there is no claim to notability per WP:NBOOKS. From what I can find, the reviews mentioned in the article are not actual reviews, but the blurbs from the book jacket. ~~The notability of the author (per WP:PROF) also appears doubtful, but~~ even if he should be notable it would not follow that everything he has published meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. bonadea contributions talk 17:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Striking my comment on the author's notability - it has been shown that he does meet WP:PROF. The second part of the comment stands, in that every book written by a notable person is not automatically and inherently notable. --bonadea contributions talk 09:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 16:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 16:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 16:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence of notability, although I accept that it is only recently published. Comment: the article author (Susanbdoyle (talk · contribs)) is new and has only contributed to articles on the subject of this book and its author. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as better evidence of preexisting notability, and better sourcing for it, has been added to the article since nomination. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harvey Chochinov[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of an academic. This was actually created on WP:NPOL grounds rather than WP:NACADEMICS, as he was named last year to the Senate of Canada -- however, he subsequently declined the appointment for personal reasons, and has never actually been nor will he ever be sworn in as a senator at all. So the NPOL passage is gone, and his notability would now have to be stacked onto his work as a psychiatry professor to remain includable -- but the only source provided for that is his primary source profile on the website of his own employer, which isn't what it would take to be deemed notable on that basis. And I can't find anything on a ProQuest search that would bolster the notability of the academic position; all I get is hits where he's either glancingly namechecked in coverage of other things, or the author of the piece rather than its subject. So it was a good faith creation at the time, but circumstances have changed and it doesn't meet any inclusion standards anymore. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep -- noted for the academic work; see for example: "Winnipeg's Harvey Chochinov gets Order of Canada for palliative care work". Would not the Order of Canada be a high indication of notability? The CBC News article further notes:

Chochinov is a leader in the field of palliative care. He's done extensive work on patient dignity, communication and existential suffering.

Chochinov developed "dignity therapy," which is now being used across the world. He also co-founded the Canadian Virtual Hospice, an online resource for patients, families, health providers and others.

Also meets WP:AUTHOR, with two published books with sufficient library holdings: Worldcat Identities. Here are sample reviews:

'Dignity Therapy: Final Words for Final Days', by Harvey Max Chochinov.

Vedder, Rachel

BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, Mar 01, 2013; Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 122

Dignity Therapy: Final Words for Final Days.

Reviewed by: Pacheco, Mercedes

Journal of Palliative Medicine, Jul 01, 2013; Vol. 16, No. 7, p. 813

The article reviews the book "Dignity Therapy: Final Words for Final Days," by Harvey ... more

K.e.coffman (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I think he would still meet WP:ACADEMIC's 5th criterion since he's both a Distinguished Professor at UManitoba, and the only Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in his field. Outside of academia, he's also an Officer in the Order of Canada, alongside other awards academic and civilian for his research, which would help him meet WP:ANYBIO. [2] [3] [4] [5]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would have helped if the article had said even one of these things, or cited any of these sources... Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of 45 passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Family Tree of House Blackfyre[edit]

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

Consists entirely of WP:OR; in any case, non-notable subpage. The family lacks its own article, and a subpage such as this has no reason to exist on its own. Redirected once already today. No reliable sources discuss this topic ([6]), ([7]), which makes this a synthesis of them at the very best. No coverage = No WP:N. Fails WP:GNG. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC) — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - Way too premature to nominate this page for deletion. It's existed for less than four hours! TedEdwards (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Sources can easily be added later. And not even House Stark or House Lannister has its own article, making that arguement redundant. TedEdwards (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as trivial and redundant: This family tree only has two actual links, both of which are redirects. These characters are not as notable as others in the series because they (as yet) only appear in some minor written works, and there appear to be no reliable sources that discuss them. Finally, this family is already covered in Family tree of House Targaryen.— TAnthony^Talk 22:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This tree has been moved to a template, to be placed in Tales of Dunk and Egg, the article where its current redirects lead, per the edit summary. As we do not create templates for use in a single article, I have instead placed the content directly into that article, where its inclusion can be discussed. This standalone, unused tree should be deleted ASAP.— TAnthony^Talk 20:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Annnd I moved it back, as this AfD is active and not in template space.— TAnthony^Talk 22:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Already on Tales of Dunk and Egg. Only used once. - AffeL (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 03:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alice Cling[edit]

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

Non working ref. Google returns essentially nothing. Ies (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)'Reply[reply]

I have invited Johnpacklambert to clarify his statement. Per WP:DISCUSSAFD valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. Mduvekot (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The references are still primarily passing and the collection holdings are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, still showing you have no idea how to assess AFDs, even after the ANI. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johnpacklambert Are you serious? Six notable museums is not enough to show notability? Mduvekot (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johnpacklambert Are you serious? Inclusion in several Encyclopedias of Art is not enough to show notability? --Theredproject (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johnpacklambert Why invite this specific editor and make his opinion be something more valued than the many editors who have build a consensus keep for this article? I don't understand. Beyond the fact that he has been banned from nominating AfD -- see here. I also disagree vehemently with his assessment. I don't think asking for his clarification is necessary AT ALL. I think this is a stub article about one of the most important living Navajo potters, someone who is repeatedly described in credentialed sources as being responsible for re-invigorating and elevating pottery to a level of artisanship that is unparalleled in their community. So disagree with this. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BrillLyle: I'd be happy to explain why I invited Johnpacklambert to comment, just not here. This discussion is only about the merits of the article, not the behaviour of editors. Contact me on my talk page if you want. Mduvekot (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was not banned from nominating articles for deletion. That is a false claim showing a lack of understanding of the restriction. The fact that PageantUpdater commented shows her extreme willingness to engage in active houding and other unfriendly behavior. Beyond this, this whole discussion shows a willingness to bully and try to force people to conform to one view instead of accepting that people have the right to their own views and not trying to force conformity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong keep Take a look at the citations I just added from a quick Google Books search (top four items). In the collection of the Smithsonian. Several sources argue she is the most important Navajo Potter of the last 25 years. --Theredproject (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment Just added a reference to her entry in The Grove encyclopedia of American art, which is about as authoritative as it gets.--Theredproject (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Keep Google returns an abundance of sources, as do google books, and scholar. This is one of the most notable artists in her field. (update) Let me try to add something that I don't recall ever having seen uin an AfD: Cling has an entry in the Union List of Artist Names (ULAN), [8]. That satisfies WP:ANYBIO#3 Mduvekot (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep With more extensive research, it seems you both are correct and my tag was premature. Let's give the discussion some time to simmer to see if anyone else has input, but as it stands my position was probably incorrect. Ies (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Artist is notable, entry should be kept as stub. Obviously needs development but this is more about the Wikipedia editors not doing enough work than actual notability. I will try to add content to have this AfD challenge dismissed. BrillLyle (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I have updated the entry significantly, which I believe clearly establishes notability. Please let me know if I need to continue. There are more resources for sure. Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - It is this attitude that keeps Wikipedia less than what it could be. If there are more resources, more relevant references, and more things that should be said about the subject, than of course the article should be expanded and improved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Johnpacklambert Dude, I improve Wikipedia by adding significant content all the time, so I take issue with this characterization and call out. If you did as many article rescues and improvements as I do then you have to be judicious as to the amount of work done and where. If I could do this full time as a paid editor I would, and would do a more deep scrub of pages like this. I'm definitely over-reacting here but this type of criticism is something I've never seen. My goals here were to (a) remove the concern about notability and this AfD by establishing notability more fully and close this AfD and (b) bring it to a stub status, both of which efforts I believe were successful. As feedback I think it might be helpful to examine why you wrote this, and how constructive it is. But maybe you are just trolling here and trying to get a negative response? I'm not sure. But I want you to know I don't appreciate having my efforts -- and the outrageous question if I had done enough work -- brought up like this. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I am sorry my comment came off as combative, that was not my intent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - the input of other editors has shown that this article might be more notable than previously thought. The fact that the article needs to be expanded is not a valid reason for deletion. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep notable artist as per Keep !votes above. She has work in major permanent collections. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep. Mentioned in The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art seems to be sufficient, and there are other sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep On further reflection on the sources it does appear there are enough to show that Cling is notable. I have to say if there is one major issue that is off about the discussion above it is that people attack me for my statements with regards to the discussion, but do not question the actions of the nominator at all. Assuming my goodlge search done now is similar to the one done at first, I can see the "essentially nothing" argument. What leads the google search are Andrea Fisher Fine Pottery and Cameron Trading Post listings. I have been to the Cameron Trading Post and while they sell fine art pottery, I doubt all their works are from notable potters. Google leading with commercial, for sale sites does not mean that there are not reliable source coverages though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SOFTDELETE – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jacob Lysgaard[edit]

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

Not notable - not enough, at least. The label which is his main claim to fame, had its article deleted through Prod. Geschichte (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daniel DeNiazi[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. A google search for him returns minimal results. The 'newsmagazine' listed has almost negligible traffic, with a global ranking of #2,864,335, seems to be a personal project rather than an actual retail news outlet.

Norway Flag 21,757 Ies (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete - this sums it up. No matter how he spells his name, the subject still isn't notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Has written some articles but nothing to show notability. Has no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. 2601:248:4500:9523:43C:32C0:AC8B:3F10 (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I could not find any reliable, independent coverage of this person or his website, nor signs that such exists. A couple of passing mentions and links, and some posts by him in comment sections, but that's it. Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I'm disagree. You have to check on publishment in paper. If we are going to follow the Wikipedias policy, its standing that sources is one of the most important tools to prove. I hope you as an administrator has read this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

He has been mention in web and newspaper (on paper/web). One of the article in Wikipedias policy said that the person can have external links publish, since this person is an official person. He has own website, are on television, In France, Norway and Russia. The external links has to prove you.

You write: "No matter how he spells his name, the subject still isn't notable." - How can you know when people from other countries knows him? And also sounds that you do not care about the sources or the person. How can you say that he is not a notable? The article is a notable, because the Wikipedias policy says this: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia". This is about a reliable person, not a fiction.

Surce: http://danielniazi.com/biography/ (notable (according the policy of Wikipedia) Publishment (date, number / Magazines/newspapers)

The Bradcasting of Norway, NRK has sent LIVE with him some times (and have programs with him).

It also standing: "This policy page specifies the community standards related to the organization, life cycle, maintenance of, and adherence to policies, guidelines, and related pages.". If you aree administrator of Wikipedia, you have also a responsibility to prove that he is not reliable person.

I will recommended you to read Wikipedias policy and guidelines. It will help you as a good administrator.

If you want me to send me more links and sources to prove that he is a reliable person, I will do it for pleasure! :) --FreizWiki (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong delete All the links in the article are either to the subjects website or to articles on their not significant paper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's correct. Wikipedia remove the links from media about this person earlier. And I was really surprise about it when Wikipedia remove about this person who are mentioned in norwegian media on web. His earlier name is "Daniel Niazi" Wikipedia just remove and do not see Daniel as an reliable person.

The link to the article he has written, is a prove that he has written about the reliable persons, Cecilie Svendsen and Scott Fivelson. The Wikipedia is not interested to have am article about reliable person and that is violations to the Wikipedias policy. I have follow Wikipedias policy and guiddelines, and the administrator is not interested in these sources.

Here is the links | sources remove (and continue ask for sources):

https://hnytt.no/2017/03/01/sveiobladet-satser-na-pa-magasin/ (hnytt.no Tabloid/Daily newspaper)
https://www.nrk.no/hordaland/grunder-vil-lofte-fram-sveio-i-media-1.12832714 (NRK Broadcastin)
https://www.nrk.no/hordaland/starter-magasin-i-sveio-1.13403248 (NRK BROADCAST)
http://www.sveiobladet.net/det-er-pennen-som-skaper-lokaldemokratiet/ (Sveiobladet | written by Randi Amland, Elise G. Sivertsen and Robert C. Frankmann)
http://danielniazi.com/biography/ (Biography | Official Website)

There is magazine cases about Daniel DeNiazi in paper. I have also send in to the administrators of Wikipedia, and they are not interested. When I follow Wikipedias guidelines and policy, I hope Wikipedia see that the sources is about a reliable person. I can also send you a screenshot from the magazines. There is a lot of them - And in the earlier in Forbes - in the magazine about the project in USA. New Daily newspaper that are going to be etablished in U.S and Ukraine. Hertz Gazeta.

You can also read about the filmdirector Cato Manuel Ekrene that has got job in Hollyood (LA) from Hollywod-writer Scott Fivelson. Cato Manuel EKrene won Beverly hills Screenplay in februar 2016 his coming film «Mango».

Read it here: http://www.sveiobladet.net/fikk-regi-jobb-hollywood-film/ (Written by Daniel DeNiazi)

Cato Manuel Ekrene: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5574080/reference (UMDb) Scott Fivelson: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0007110/reference

Something more? I have respect to the Wikipedias policy and guidelines, but the administrators have to follow them too! --FreizWiki (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The HNYTT and second NRK articles are usable, but they are not substantial or sufficient. The others are not usable for notability. The usable sources say that he's started a community newspaper for the town Sveio, right? The editor of a small-town magazine/website with a circulation in the 4,000-6,000 range is not likely to be notable without substantial sources. They support that he exists and started a community project, but do not establish WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. These source are not deep enough. They are minor, local, and primarily about Sveiobladet as a project, not DeNiazi as a person. I have no idea why you're bringing up other people. Why would that matter? Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sveiobladet is just the name of the newspaper. The newspaper is branched on Haugaland, Stord, Sveio, Haugesund, Karmøy, Tysvaer and Fitjar. Article about Daniel DeNIazi, is about him and the sources about what he i known for. And the reasons I bring the article up to other people, is that he is known for the articles about them. I have also mention these people, because Wikipedia do not believe that Daniel is an reliable person. Wikkipedia do not follow their owns policy and guidelines.

I do not understand why Daniel DeNiazi is not an interested person on Wikipedia when he has his name on TV, in newspapers, magazines for his etablishment. He is an journalist and have work as a journalist in 8 years. He has worked in NRK, Sunnhordland (newspaper), Vestavind (Newspaper).

Why do you references to website in te circulation in the 4.000-6.000. ANd talk about the he is the editor in a small newspaper, when Sveiobladet is a daily newspaper?? NRK and Hnytt are not usable. They are sourcess that follow the Wikipedias policy and guidelines.

With all respect! When I have prove the Wikipedia that he is reliable person. How can I prove Wikipedia? I follow your policy and guidelines. You can search on Cato Manuel Ekrene. You will not find so many articles about him. Daniel DeNiazi has a results (if you search Daniel Niazi) that is more than Cato Manuel Ekrene and is more mentioned in magazine then Cato and Scott together.

SOURCES: https://www.facebook.com/DanNappen

So Wikipedia do looking for results on Google? As a researcher and Wikipedia-author, I understand that Wikipedia is more about the person not the facts! --FreizWiki (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not trying to be rude, but I really do not understand a lot of what you are saying. For this article to be saved, we need reliable sources of substance which are about him as a person. Those sources must be independent of him. His website is not independent. Facebook is not independent. An interview with him is not independent. An interview with him in the newspaper he edits is definitely not independent. Also, those sources must explain why he is notable. Having worked as a journalist for eight years (since he was 17 or 18, I guess?) doesn't matter. Many people work in jobs for a long time, but that doesn't make them notable. You say he is "known for" articles about other people... who knows him for that? Are there sources about these articles? Great! Where are they? If not, it doesn't matter, because he's just doing a job. Are you suggesting he's more notable than Ekrene? Perhaps Cato Manuel Ekrene should be improved or deleted also, but this isn't the place to discuss that. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what is reliable sources? I've just follow the Wikipedias guidelines and policy. I just references to the article. When Daniel Niazi has a good hit and is known for his etablshments. He have also use Daniel Niazi, Daniel Nappen and Daniel Jacobsen. I understand of course why do you not find the results of his work.

You will find the links: http://danielniazi.com/press/

Why he change his name - I do not know, but he has been in magazine with the name Daniel DeNiazi. Earlier he use Daniel Niazi. My fault that i do not come with this information earlier. But he has been mention in media. I hope you will understand more about it. If he had used Daniel DeNiazi I will udnerstood more why he was on Wikipedia few years ago. How Can i prove this? We have fysical prove; magazine, paper.... I am sorry I come up with this article. I thought Wikipedia was looking for reliable people, but I am not sure now. What am I goig to do? to prove this? --FreizWiki (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please look more carefully at WP:JOURNALIST. We're not looking for examples of his work, we are looking for coverage of his work. Not all reliable sources are useful for establishing notability. DeNiazi's articles may be reliable for other articles, but that doesn't make him notable as a journalist. Let me say that again another way: A source can be reliable, but still not establish notability, because notability guidelines require secondary coverage of substance.

I followed some of those press links at his own website. One was a dead link, Some of the others didn't appear to mention him at all (is he... in one of the photos? Not a good sign), and a third was a profile of him as a blogger. That profile is usable, but definitely on the weak side, especially since the article currently mentions nothing about his blogging activities. I'm underwhelmed. Wikipedia sources do not have to be online, but they do still have to meet other requirements. A list of articles which may or may not mention him is useless for this. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete This article fails to establish the notability of its subject. And bear in mind that it is a question of notability, not reliability. Whether the subject is reliable has no bearing on whether it meets general notability guidelines (GNG). Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - as my nom.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7 deletion. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mego (Artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable subject. Google returns nothing. Ies (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete A7. --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eduardo Leveck[edit]

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

Fails to meet our standards of WP:NMUSIC and general notability guidelines no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm also nominating the following articles on albums and singles by the same artist.

Lost Files (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My Last Mistake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – GSS (talk|c|em) 16:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong delete. Apart from his music in iTunes, I couldn't even find proof that he actually exists. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 18:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete as well. Looks like another non-notable artist with their music on iTunes (which doesn't take much to achieve) and besides that, nothing. Article had a false claim that he charted on the Brasil Hot 100 Airplay chart—Billboard.com/biz shows he has never charted, and even widening that search to all charts turns up nothing. Ss112 14:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a vanity publishing platform for making fake claims. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete - non-notable musician.Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted, author blanked The author blanked Silently Destroyed, I took the liberty to assum they would wish the same for the other page, and deleted it has well.. Nabla (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Silently Destroyed[edit]

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

PROD tag removed without explanation by the article's author. The PROD rationale (which I still stand by) was: Non notable self-published book by non-notable teenage author. Pichpich (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete(possible CSD G11): A WP:SPA WP:COI promotional article about a new e-book. No evidence provided or found of notability, whether by WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable in the slightest. Also comment, the article has been reposted at Silently Destroyed (novel) by another account... potentially same user. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I've added an AFD notice to that page as well. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Silently Destroyed in an ebook being nominated for the Wattys, a Wattpad book award. Page should not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.89.139.144 (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC) — 2.89.139.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joshua Evans (YouTube personality)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT (and WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG). AfD due to the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Possible AfD – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The article identifies Evans as a "singer, songwriter and YouTube personality". I have followed Evans and his ex-wife, Colleen Ballinger, closely since 2009 because of my interest in her career. I believe that Evans's entertainment career is based almost entirely on his association with his ex-wife, with whom he toured briefly. He has performed on a cruise ship and with a non-notable "boy group", but he has never recorded or released any music. He is *not* a songwriter; he does not write, and has not written, songs. As a "YouTube personality", Social Blade ranks him 18,969th among YouTubers and 2,128th by number of subscriptions. Like thousands of other people, he has monetized his YouTube vlogs, but I do not believe that it makes him notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete A WP:BEFORE suggests the only sources available are tabloids and blogs. The only WP:RS to provide coverage (e.g. NYT NYT , Independent) are only passing mentions of him, always in the context of hs (ex)wife, and mostly regarding their divorce. If that was a claim to notability, we'd all be notable :) — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per the above. No objection to a new article if he becomes notable later, but based on what we have now? Nope. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indian Astronomy or Study of Astrology - Jyothirshasthra[edit]

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

This is a personal essay, pure WP:OR. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, yes, I'm afraid it's original nonsense without relation to the real history as documented in Astrology#Hindu and Hindu astrology; the links provided do not support the claims made, nor is there anything recoverable in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and Chiswick Chap. This started at Indian astronomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and, after I reverted two attempts there, it metastacised to this article. Dr. K. 16:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per all of the above: nothing recoverable in the body, consisits purely of unencyclopaedic material, and a subject which is in any case addressed elsehere on WP. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kimberly Lee Whyte[edit]

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

Not a particularly notable model. The article was originally created as an autobiography, which I deleted per WP:CSD#G11. After being challenged on my talk page, I have added the one source I can find to The Independent that passes WP:BLPSOURCES and brought the discussion here. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedied per WP:A7. There's no credible claim of significance or importance in any of the versions. The Independent may be a reliable source, but its article doesn't have any tendency to show notability either. Bishonen | talk 13:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only objection or "keep" vote rests on a hypothetical argument that was not substantiated. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael Arbouet[edit]

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

An article on a producer of non-notable low budget films (with some other minor work), which fails to establish notability, and was paid for by the subject. There are no reliable independent sources primarily about the subject. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep As long as neutral articles about Mr. Arbouet could be found, I think this entry could be kept.TH1980 (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. A news search brings up this passing mention and that's it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted per G11 as unambiguous advertising/promotion/spam – Athaenara ✉ 12:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barbwires[edit]

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

BEFORE does not find any independent sources, no "significant coverage"; fails WP:GNG. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG after checking notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We appreciate the standards for strict rules by which content must be considered. I WANT TO SHOUT.. GOOGLE is not the only engine - AND they could be attempting to Suppress Barbwires. TRY a SEARCH on YAHOO and then try a search on BING - compared to google - it appears THEY WANT TO BURY US, and we are looking into legal advice on what is observed suppression.

NOT YOUR PROBLEM - Yes! I know. I will add the various and more complete history which brings the reason for bringing 17 years of hard work into the light of day, and I hope I can unfold that to your satisfaction here on Wikipedia and the wonderful and dedicated people who make it work so well.

thanks Eddie ZzeonBlue (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)ZzeonBlue @ barbwires.com @barbwiresradio @onyourturntable and the ever odd Mr. Mark Baker of ESCN.COM, our hosting affiliate.Reply[reply]

ZzeonBlue (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Zzeonblue has completed several new additions and will continue tomorrow with additional references to external content, timeline events, and other areas which contribute to a notability of merit. thanks and please — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZzeonBlue (talk • contribs) Reply[reply]

Note: The above comment was originally signed KGirlTrucker81 (talk · contribs), but was in fact made by ZzeonBlue (talk · contribs). —swpb^T 14:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything on Yahoo or Bing that comes any closer to demonstrating WP:GNG than what can be found with Google, and the suggestion of purposeful "suppression" of this little enterprise by Google is not worthy of consideration. The amount of time or effort put into a project, and the nobility of its aims, are irrelevant to whether it merits an encyclopedia article – the only thing that matters is external recognition through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. That has not been demonstrated here, and it appears unlikely that it can be demonstrated. —swpb^T 13:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'm also extremely disturbed by this edit, which appears to be the article creator's attempt at impersonating another editor in order to sway the course of discussion. We have no tolerance for that sort of behavior. —swpb^T 13:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is ZzeonBlue and the previous edit was a mistake and misunderstanding of the cut and paste which seems to work so well within the context of this 'space' - actually too well. Not attempting to deceive anyone or cause any harm - just trying place an article on wikipedia. I understand the notability guidelines and am working very hard to build the external links which offer substantive evidence of our effort and work in this world of streaming. I offer "allow some time for editing as deletion should be a last resort when subject material is being developed and introduced to provide valid content. I also understand reviewers have tools and use regular processes everyday to keep Wikipedia as clean and factual as possible. In the history of streaming, there were many players and incremental gains made, very few from the 90s exist today, and their struggle is worth discovering. As barbwires ties new agreements with EU labels and promotional groups, as it has in the past year, it will demonstrate new growth, we are documenting that growth dynamically. ZzeonBlue (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)ZzeonBlueReply[reply]

This protestation of innocence is belied by the very edit in which it was made, in which you can see ZzeonBlue (talk · contribs) removing my comments, including my delete vote, and restoring the false signature he placed on one of his earlier comments. I for one think the assumption of good faith has been thoroughly exhausted here, and I'll be pursuing a block with the next suspicious edit from this demonstrably shady account. —swpb^T 13:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Found zero sources in searches: News, newspapers. Fails GNG. Widefox; talk 10:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment & G6 (G7), G11 (has already been copy/paste moved) ZzeonBlue if I've understood your comments correctly, you'll want to see and follow the disclosure in the policy WP:COI. I now see it's been WP:userifyed (by copy/paste) to User:ZzeonBlue/sandbox. OK, please also see WP:CUTPASTE for why cut paste is not to be done, sorry for the learning curve. Widefox; talk 10:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stan Bernard[edit]

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

The sources prove he exists but there is no evidence of actual notability. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete – another attempt to add to the virtual Walled garden of articles on non-notable voice actors on Wikipedia. (And created by a now banned author, to boot...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kehinde Alli[edit]

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

The subject is the biological father of a notable footballer Dele Alli, but I don't think that gives the subject here any notability. According to the article about the son, the subject "moved to the United States a week after Dele's birth" and may have taken no part in his upbringing. I can see no notability shown here for this subject apart possibly from the WP:BLP1E fact of his being Dele's father. Some of the details of Dele's upbringing given in his article are at variance with some of the things I've seen on Google that claim he was raised in Lagos, and others that claim that the subject here was involved with the upbringing. All in all, it looks like there is information and there is misinformation to be found. Here, we are looking primarily at the subject's notability, and the future of this mildly promotional article. Peridon (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited. This person needs to be shown to be notable on their own, which doesn't yet seem to be the case. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as above. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, and the fact there is no citation. Govvy (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - non-notable footballer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SOFTDELETE – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elliott Poe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP-issues. Kleuske (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clay Clark[edit]

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

Not a single RS for notability. All are either his own statements, or local indiscriminate news stories. The Forbes story does not mention him. I cannot verify the sba award, except in his own statements. I can find no evidence that any of his companies were notable. DGG ( talk ) 10:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Press releases, local Tulsa news...that's about it. Not notable. Lourdes 16:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SOFTDELETE – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Diender[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vlatko Blažević[edit]

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

Never played in a fully professional league; also seems to fail WP:GNG (I was able to fine one interview with him [9] in local media). Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The Soccerway link in the article shows that he had 13 appearances from 2013 to 2015 for NK Zadar in 1. HNL aka Prva HNL listed in WP:FPL as a fully-professional league, meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I did not realize this. I will withdraw it now.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aces of the Air[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Aces of the Air" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

No indication of notability. Unsourced and I was unable to find any substantial online sources. There may be Japanese sources that I'm not aware of. Please ping me if there are. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete [10], [11] suggests insufficient RS to demonstrate notability. As per nom re. reliable Japanese sources. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. GameRankings lists PSN magazine review [12], but that's just one review. VG reliable source search, as well as aggregate listings don't bring anything else up. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: the VG/S search drags nearly nothing up, indicating a lack of independent reliable sourcing. --Izno (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Action Man. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Action Man: Operation Extreme[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Unsourced and I was unable to find any substantial online sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assuming that this is verifiable I see the best course of action is to create a video game section on the Action Man article and then redirecting this to that section. There were 4 games so there should eaisly be enough to for a section.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge and Redirect, probably to Action Man, based both on the current quality of the article and the minority of sourcing availabible. Why wasn't an alternative to deletion considered? In the WP:VG/RS search I'm seeing that there may have been a review at 1UP and that there is a current review at IGN. --Izno (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And Gamezone, under the European release name? --Izno (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abidoye Lukman Ayedeji[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Never played in fully professional league. No reliable sources to prove notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:RS as no sources were found on GNEWS Zazzysa (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete does not meet the includion criteria for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I know for a fact that Prime F.C. were promoted to the elite division at the end of the 2006 season, note that Nigeria Premier League is listed as a professional league in WP:NFOOTY. I also know that they got relegated in 2008. The article states that he played for Prime between 2006 and 2007, which could mean that he might have played in a professional league. But I'm particularly concerned about the lack of reference. I couldn't get any substantial reliable hit on him. Keeping the article could translate to WP:OR to me. Darreg (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kishva Ambigapathy[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale (from the article talk page) is copied verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion, except to note that the source are lacking as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patently obvious that this person is not a public figure of any sort. The article is self-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.241.114 (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Being chair of a youth organization is not an automatic notability freebie just because he exists. It would be enough if he could be reliably sourced to enough media coverage to get him over WP:GNG, but three of the four sources here are primary sources (the organization's own webpage, the webpage of the university where he's a student, the webpage of a second university that had a delegate at the conference). There's only one source here that's even a maybe on the "does this source count toward demonstrating encyclopedic notability?" test — but even if we give Free Malaysia Today the benefit of the doubt, one RS is not enough RS to clear GNG. And while it's not quite a foregone conclusion that the article was actually an outright WP:AUTOBIO, the creator's username "Rcsyouthmalaysia" is certainly indicative of some form of conflict of interest (i.e. it could have been a friend or colleague of his.) Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alexandru Constantin[edit]

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

No real claim to notability. Independent coverage is limited to a couple of softball interviews in gossip magazines. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all the sources are from organizations he is directly connected to, there is no indepdent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SOFTDELETE – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UGC 8690[edit]

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

Per WP:NASTRO, there is nothing notable about this galaxy. Lithopsian (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I checked SIMBAD and WikiSky for papers on the galaxy; I couldn't really find any. P. S. I've noticed VirtualDave making some articles on various galaxies, what order is he/she making them in? They don't seem to be in particular order, and the creation of UGC 8690, which isn't an NGC object, surprised me. Loooke (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oasis Animation[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale. I would redirect, but could not decide on whether Martha Speaks (TV series) or Arthur (TV series) would be the more appropriate target. Searches only turned up mentions, or press releases. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment since they've worked on multiple projects with a fair degree of prominence I don't think redirecting to any particular one works - the article either needs to get expanded and reffed or to just go. Artw (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete -- no indications of importance, no sources listed. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - No significant. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chris Madden[edit]

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

He appears to fail to fail to WP:GNG per only a few routine sources. He seems to pass the bare minimum of WP:NHOCKEY with a first team all star selection for the ECHL but that assumes notability, it is not automatic. Maybe someone else can find a secondary independent source to back up a WP:GNG claim? Yosemiter (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Meets NHOCKEY and has received some coverage, for example [13], [14], [15], [16]. The latter is admittedly local and pretty minor, but the others bring him at least to the border of GNG, so I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Rlendog (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Rlendog's sources, and the fact that he actually meets WP:NHOCKEY, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Lepricavark, Yosemiter What evidence is there that he meats WP:NHOCKEY? Is it just your opinion or are there facts to back it up? These discussions are not a vote; without any valid reason your vote is meaningless, it's just your opinion. Notability is not an editors popularity contest! If Madden does meet WP:NHOCKEY, please let us know why you assert that he does.Jacona (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JaconaFrere: Per Elite Prospects, he was an ECHL First Team in 2004–05 which meets NHOCKEY #4 (the bare minimum as I said). This usually means there are articles about him but does not mean that he automatically passes GNG. The ESPN and Canoe articles from Rlendog though might be secondary enough to not be considered routine. Yosemiter (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is true that Madden meets a bare minimum of NHOCKEY, as you explained in the nom. But he also has additional credentials that while falling short of NHOCKEY do not fall far short, unlike many run-of-the-mill AfD subjects. For example, he did not play 90 games in the AHL. But he did play more than 80 (a quick sum from Elite Prospects I think gives me 83). Also, he was the Memorial Cup MVP which is not an award we include in the NHOCKEY criteria but not a trivial award either, and one that may (and in Madden's case did) bring him some coverage. 15:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why I was pinged here. All I did was some deletion sorting. I never made any claims or expressed any opinions about the article. Moreover, why didn't you challenge Johnpacklambert's delete !vote, since all he did was make an unsupported claim? On the other hand, Yosemiter explained in the nom why the subject meets WP:NHOCKEY. Did you read any of what was written above? Lepricavark (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep the subject meets NHOCKEY and enough sources exist to demonstrate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7 Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vijay Pushparaj Jr[edit]

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

Contested PROD. See here for the rationale. J 947 07:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Delete - it was the page author who removed the Speedy Deletion template originally placed on it - see this diff. They can't do that, so I have reinstated it. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as non notable. Same info on their user page anyway. Poss. they are confused as to what page is what. Nb. they removed the speedy tag twice, and the page has previously been deleted! --220 of ^Borg 08:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per A9 by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 03:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If It Wasn't for My Nana & Family[edit]

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

Non-notable musical recording. Does not meet The General Notability Guideline or the notability requirements for musical recordings. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: per nom. Would probably meet CSD. David.moreno72 09:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, the only category that would usually apply (WP:A9) doesn't in this case because the artist's article currently exists (although that's up for an A7 speedy). Exemplo347 (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note The artist's article has been speedily deleted. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of former Nazi Party members[edit]

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

Duplication, List of Nazis with subpages, and List of Nazi Party leaders and officials, have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I say keep. This article is about those that left the party because of a change in mind. Herman Rauschning is a good example. Just keep it. People put a lot of effort into this page. When I see "Articles for Deletion" it is about "making a name for oneself". This is about destroying the hard work of others. Let the article stand. I'm tired of the endless battles on Wikipedia. WHEELER (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete A subset of the List of Nazis which seems unnecessary. Maybe these are Nazis someone found to be more interesting than the others. The fact that someone worked hard on an article is not a reason found in policies or guidelines for keeping it. Edison (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment It is pretty odd to claim these Nazis left the party because of a " change of mind" when the list includes Hitler, Goering and other diehards. Edison (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - this is a partial, redundant list of information already provided elsewhere in Wiki. See WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Also, contrary to earlier comment, there doesn't seem to be a rationale for including some Nazis but not others. Smacks of POV. Glendoremus (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete During the Third Reich, membership in the Nazi Party was effectively mandatory for civil servants and any prominent people. I do not see how this list, which would include thousands of names of people who have articles, is helpful. Also, most of the lead is about criminals and spies, implying that the people in the list were involved in criminal activity or spying. TFD (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HipVoice[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:CORP and WP:PRODUCT. Written like a company brochure so this also violates WP:PROMOTION. Xaxing (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG as I am unable to find substantial coverage of the firm in reliable, independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - empty page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honeypreet insan[edit]

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

Blank page. Fbdave (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of airlines of the Faroe Islands[edit]

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

This list has only one entry and is therefore useless. A template of the same name has recently also been deleted through TFD. Olidog (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or merge into a combined "Airlines of European Dependencies". I tend to agree. A one entry list that so rarely changes isn't likely to do much good. See also List of defunct airlines of Faroe Islands. At one point they formed a combined list of two but that's still not obviously useful. The only value I can see in a list for these airlines is to populate List of airlines of the Faroe Islands, which might be helpful to people exploring the airlines of various countries and territories. In that case, though, it might be better to make one page for those smaller places' airlines. The other two existing lists are List of airlines of Guernsey and List of airlines of Svalbard, both two entries long. Mortee (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per Mortee BobLaRouche (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any editor may feel free to also create the suggested redirects if desired. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Philippine television specials aired in 2017[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list of TV specials which aired in the Philippines. Nominated per WP:NOTTVGUIDE Not only is this a barely notable topic WP:LISTCRUFT but it also mostly unsourced Ajf773 (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail for the exact same reasons:

Redirect Much better. Time consuming. But still contributing with proper sources. Per nom. - Supergabbyshoe

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect - such no related on special television events WP:LISTCRUFT. Oripaypaykim (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Redirect to where? Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I think redirect to 2013 in Philippine television, 2015 in Philippine television, 2016 in Philippine television does reconsidered each year-round, lets merge from their Lists of Philippine television specials aired to (year) in Philippine television. Oripaypaykim (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Redirecting would be sufficient although I don't know what content would be suitable for merging. Ajf773 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. An unfocused list that reads beyond WP:NOTTVGUIDE and basically lists anything on Filipino TV that isn't regularly scheduled as a special. Keep it confined and much more focused in the "2017 in Philippine television" article. Nate • (chatter) 05:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect Same reason as Supergabbyshoe and Oripaykimkim. - User:Pinespunned (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. All participants so far have expressed a willingness for this to be converted into a draft, so we'll go with that rather than another relist. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redrum – A tale of Murder[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM and this appear to be a case of WP:NFF. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: This could probably be incubated maybe, if Sandhya2012 wanted. I didn't see anything about a release date, so I'm unsure as to when this would be released - or if the filming has commenced or completed. I get the impression that filming may have taken place, but the articles only seem to discuss the controversy surrounding the actress. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I've tidied the article up a bit but I think it's a borderline case. There has been some coverage about the fact that it's been unable to secure a release because of India/Pakistan tensions (being an Indian film with a Pakistani actress), but not a huge amount. Total Bollywood[17] gives a release date of last Thursday but may or may not be reliable (says 'Wiki' but has a named author; not listed on the relevant project's source list either way). I'll do some more looking. Mortee (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tokyogirl79 and Mortee: I'm open to withdraw my nomination if anyone can provide some sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NFILM or I suggest draftify per WP:NFF. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm undecided on this one. I could maybe see an argument for it, but when push comes to shove I'd prefer that this be incubated in someone's draftspace as I don't really think it's ready at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draftify. I think that's right. I've spent an embarrassing amount of time looking for more sources and can't find any. Supposing this isn't released, I don't think it'll warrant an article long-term. Supposing it is released, perhaps soon, presumably it'll get more attention then and we can write an article based on that. If we just delete it we'd lose the work that's gone into it which would make writing that version harder, so moving this to a draft seems like the best call. Mortee (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or Draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stanley Leopold Fowler[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG a coatrack article for his replica property empire. Theroadislong (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. In the meantime the article requires removal of unsourced trivial detail and hagiographic language that undermine credibility. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I gave modest clean up a shot, to no avail: [18]. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete As said above, the hagiography gets in the way of serious analysis, but once out of the way (it should be now- I've had a gin at it), the remainder of the article does not withstand scrutiny. Whatever limited notability the village had (and a search suggests it was not as popular as the article indicates), the creator had even less; their are almost no sources apart from us online. Now, of course, they don't have to be online only; but it would be odd for a notable topic not to have some online presence. The article's references do not exist, so they cannot be taken to demonstrate weight. The list of sources at the bottom of the article would be useful, but they are inaccessable to me atm. Perhaps someone who can glance through them can weigh up the WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage the article subject would require to pass WP:GNG at the least.

Further- let me re-emphasise, partly encouraged by Thewayweis' call to arms below, that if as has has been mentioned many times there are newspaper articles from the 70s (or whenever), they would go a long way to demonstrating the notability which is required but is still lacking. So, Thewayweis, can I suggest (in the most emphatic manner politely possible!) that instead of attempting a campaign of moral persuasion via massive chunks of text here, your time would be far better spent collating these source articles. You will note, perhaps, that your massive paragaph has been answered, succintly and accurately by Theroadislong in a single line, regardless of how much you wrote. So, get the newspaper references you mentioned, and either insert them into the SLF page as references, or put them on the article talk page, or even bring them here. Title, date, article title, byline, page number would be great- and sufficient. You do not need permission of the journalists to cite their work. Otherwise there would be no encyclopaedias :) and, after all, we have many editors who are local enough that if they want they can probably physically check the newspaper archives at another date. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete I'm not seeing sources online, like the other posters have noted above. There's a chance with somebody who was notable in that time, that there's a lot of material offline, but unless somebody can find it it's not doing us any good. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete pretty much per the same reasoning as White Arabian Filly above. I have done some minor cleanup of the article just now, removing footnotes that no longer supported anything in the text, removing one newspaper ref that did not mention the title of the paper and so would be untraceable even for somebody with access to offline archives, and just tidying up the refs. Here is the article before my edit, in case somebody wants to look at those now-removed references. The company mentioned in the lede does not have any online footprint that I can find. The Sir David Brand Award for Tourism might be a claim to notability, but I'm not sufficiently convinced to change my !vote on that count. As for the Elizabethan Village, it looks like a place I would like to visit and there's obviously a lot of hard work and dedication behind it - which does not translate into notability, unfortunately. There seems to have been a number of local newspaper articles written about it when it was opened and again around its anniversary, but nothing that would meet WP:GNG. It is mentioned in Armadale, Western Australia which is reasonable but I do not believe that it adds to its creator's notability. --bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I feel the need to enter this discussion and hopefully put my point across as the author of the article. As a newcomer to wikipedia, I am deeply grateful for all the constructive editing that most contributors have done on the article and I truly don't mind guidance in any sense - I welcome it! Again, as a newcomer, half of the time I am not sure where to go to respond, as there are so many links within links within links to know what is the appropriate option. Nor do I know when suggestions come up on boxes how to fully implement them. Shame wiki cannot allocate a guide to each newcomer if not to make life a tad easier to contribute. The disputed recurring problems, in my humble opinion, seem to be notability and references. The fact is that Stanley Leopold Fowler DID build the Elizabethan Village in Armadale for which there is a plethora of images and documented video footage, he DID win the prestigious Sir David Brand Award for Tourism (images of newspaper articles were supplied to wiki permissions), he DID have three attempts to get permission off Dr. Levi Fox (I spoke to Amy Hurst at the Trust who verified his attempts as they are noted in their archives), the Elizabethan Village DID get a plaque commemorating him and the Elizabethan Village as a historic site which he built (the images were sent to wiki permissions and the City of Armadale needs to grant permission for them to be released). What some one personally thinks about the site pales into insignificance with the fact that it is there and standing as a historic site. I might not like the Stonehenge but it is there as a testimony. I personally saw the blueprints at the archives at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford -upon -Avon and spoke to Amy Hurst, Collections Archivist at the Shakespeare's Birthplace Trust, who can verify their gratitude not only for posterity but also for having the only accurate blueprints, drawings of the original buildings, which they can consult to keep the original buildings from decay). The references kindly given by his daughter, Sally-ann Fowler were from newspaper articles from the 70's (I provided images to this effect of the articles) and I have asked wiki permissions ([Ticket#2017012910007647] Stanley Leopold Fowler) if these can be used. The problem, as I see it, is that they cannot be used as permission needs to be sought from the authors of these articles (who are possibly deceased and cannot be tracked, although I have tried). When the article was initially proposed for deletion this issue, I thought was dealt with but it seems to have reared it's ugly head three times. I hoped that dealing with it once was enough!

The issue of collaboration as I see it, especially with the last deletion proposal, was that there was no collaboration nor constructive guidance by the editor who deleted it. Albeit, I must apologize for thinking it was Theroadislong although he/she cited COI. I was fascinated by the man who actually created something tangible for prosperity, which is officially deemed a historic site, and there is nothing concrete said about him. Is he to fall into obscurity because of referencing? If my style of writing was the issue that can be changed, but no one even said it was to me for me to correct it, although it was called a 'hagiography'. Yes there are guidelines on wiki, but those seem to also be at the whim of individual interpretation. I question how many times can the same article be up for deletion? Going back to the beginning, I cannot stress how grateful I am for the constructive editors who have truly contributed, helped and guided this newcomer...so on a positive...there is always hope! Thewayweis (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one here is doubting the "truth" of what you say but Wikipedia only summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic, if there are no reliable sources then there can be no article. Theroadislong (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just seen your encouraging post imperatrix mundi and yes I take on board the constructive suggestion to gather the arms, clear the field and direct the energy into collating all the information I have to support Leo Fowler. Thank you...may be that's all I needed :) Thewayweis (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is the list...I uploaded the images originally in wiki commons under Stanley Leopold Fowler as I don't yet know what SLF page is :( These articles show different aspects of the making of the Elizabethan Village and are all about Mr Leo Fowler

Birmingham Post 15th July 1977 - Much Ado for the Outback Bard by Andrew Moncur

Daily News 15th September 1977 -"Unveiled-A piece of Olde England" -

Mr Leo Fowler receiving the Sir David Brand Award - unmarked newspaper but an article non the less -

The Sunday Independent - Elizabethan Add -

The next image is from an article announcing Mary Arden's but unfortunately unmarked and the date is for the purpose of uploading the article

Tudor Village Re-created by Dennis Hancock - unmarked newspaper have given a date for purpose of upload

Woman's Day 28.11.1977 - His 'fair house in another's land' by Hugh Schmitt

Woman's Day cover Image 28.11.1977 -

The Examiner pg 24, 12.02.2009 -"A piece of Shakespearean History up for sale"

Evening Echo, Bournmouth, "Another Island up for sale" 01.07 (not clear of the date but its around the 60's) Leo Fowler selling his property The Round Island https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sale_of_Round_Island_Evening_Echo,_Bournemouth_newspaper_article_1st_July_-_unmarked_year_(1).jpg

Evening Echo, Bournmouth, "Another Island up for sale" 01.07.(not clear of the date but its around the 60's) Image of the island for sale

File:Sale of Round Island, Evening Echo Bournemouth newspaper article 1st July unmarked year (2).jpg

Image of The Round Island up for Sale

Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 17.10.2009 Image of plaque at the Elizabethan Village from the City of Armadale commemorating Leo Fowler and acknowledging his Sir David Brand Award handed over by the Mayor Linton Reynolds

The Leo Fowler Function Center image - originally it was The William Shakespeare Function Center but changed to commemorate Leo Fowler on 17.10.2009

Poster inviting people to join in the celebrations for Shakespeare's birthday at the Elizabethan Village

youtube footage of the Elizabethan Village ...I wasn't sure if these are valid for you but there are many more footages and photographs that can support the whole journey. On Sall-ann Fowler' s you tube channel you can find footage of Bricklehampton Hall and Round Island as well as the imported antiques and the Elizabethan village.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf5rLNGlj0M&feature=youtu.be - this is just one of the documented footages but there are many more.

There are more snippets in articles I can post if you wish but they are unmarked so not sure of the actual newspaper. I had to reload them on and upload them to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Stanley_Leopold_Fowler as this is as far as my wiki knowledge extends.

Hopefully, these uploads for you will be enough reference for Stanley Leopold Fowler to stay on wiki as a notable human being. There are also two books published by Sally-ann Fowler with ISBN numbers, that I listed originally, but was told being that they were self-published it doesn't count :( although you can buy them on amazon, lulu and i think Barns and Noble.

Thewayweis (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. The article about the Round Island sale hasn't comeup. It was published in Evening Echo, Bournemouth "Another Island up for sale" speaks of Leo Fowler being the owner of the island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewayweis (talk • contribs) 14:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge, with redirect, to Armadale,_Western_Australia#Natural_and_Cultural_Attractions, or perhaps create article at Elizabethan Village and redirect there. There clearly needs to be a link of some sort from this man's name, even if not a standalone article. PamD 07:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Create article Elizabethan Village, and redirect SLF to it. A search on Google Books under " "Elizabethan village" Armadale" suggests it was a regular tourist attraction in its day, and someone with access to old Australian tourist guidebooks would find much more coverage. The impressive collection of press cuttings can be used as references, before someone deletes them all as copyvio. It gets a mention by Howard Jacobson, a mention in a novel, etc. A contemporary tourist attraction with comparable listings would be likely to have an article. The man is probably not notable, but his creation seems to be. Another useful current ref here. PamD 10:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And a mention in the Telegraph here. PamD 10:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And as the plaque shows, it was the Village, not the man, which was awarded the "David Brand Award for Tourism", which the David Brand article confirms to have been the former name (dates a bit iffy) of the now WA Tourism Awards (though their website has no sense of heritage and doesn't include a list of former winners!). PamD 11:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address new sources and move them for viewing somewhere off-wiki (we do not have the copyright permissions to host these uploads)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 05:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I think the article needs help referring to Thewayweis Jacob20162016 (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I agree that Elizabethan Village is a more suitable focus for an article than Fowler himself. If the outcome of this discussion is delete, a lot of the content could be reused and so it would be good if it could be userfied to give either Thewayweis or someone else the chance to do so. – Joe (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the nominator I would be content for the article to be about Elizabethan Village instead, rather than the man behind it. Theroadislong (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - if it would be welcome, I'm happy to help with the development of an article about the Elizabethan Village if that's the outcome (that seems to be the way this is going) Mortee (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the comments and the willingness to tidy whatever needs tiding but I have to say that the discussion above has horrified me. You are willing to accept the Elizabethan Village but not accept the creator!!!!! Astonishing !!!! It's like acknowledging the works of Shakespeare but not acknowledging the writer. The village is notable but not the creator....Did the village create itself. At the end of the day, did the village literally receive the award into it's hands or was it handed into the hands of its owner, creator and builder Leo Fowler. Splitting hairs comes to mind. The plaque issued in 2009 states "City of Armadale - Historic Site - Elizabethan Village - Brought to reality by the vision and hard work of retired British Engineer, Leo Fowler, Anne Hathaway's Cottage, Shakespeare's Birthplace and Cobwebs Restaurant accurate replicas of the original buildings on Stratford-On-Avon.".

I truly don't know what to say to the above! On the subject of copywright, all the above was given with the permission of Leo's daughter Sally-ann Fowler, and as Imperatrix Mundi said "You do not need permission of the journalists to cite their work. Otherwise there would be no encyclopaedias " I have given everything that you have asked of me and still,  it seems, that someone, something wants to discredit the man who created  and self-financed the village.

Thewayweis (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forgot to mention the brilliant story of the bricks, window frames and tiles, together with all the antiques swimming across the oceans to land on the Western Australian shores and gather together, under the moonlight, reaching a consensus of who is going to be assembled with whom, of course with the help of all the reusable jarra. And that's how they built the Elizabethan Village. Thewayweis (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely no one here is trying to discredit Stanley, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarises dispassionately what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. If there are insufficient sources about him, as opposed to the Elizabethan village then we can't have an article about him. Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thewayweis, is your view that there should be articles about both the village and the creator? My impression from the discussion was that other editors think that because he's mostly notable for the village, we can cover the details about him in an article about that and don't need both. Perhaps we should write the village article and then see if you still think there are details that that need to be presented on a page of their own. Mortee (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly, my response to Theroadislong Technically, you ARE discrediting him as a creator of the village and just accepting the creation. Quoting the need for "reliable" sources even after the knowledge of the era we are talking about is beyond comprehension. I have been saying repeatedly, to no avail, since I have written the article that Leo and the Village happened in the 1970's which is a very, very different information era than the one we know these days. I have complied to the requests above and posted on here images to that effect. Leo is the village, the village wouldn't exist without Leo! There is a history room named after him "Leo Fowler Function Room". This process is equal to Kafka's "Trial" as it seems an article can be up for deletion three times at the whim of individual likes or dislikes. Please delete all wiki articles of people who have ever created anything and just keep the creations. What more do you want ...it was in the 70's!!!!!!!! Forgive me,but the communications that are building with yourself, as the nominator for deletion, seem to have become a personal mission, to what extent, is unclear to me.. I accept constructive ways forward but refuse ones that are making no sense.... it appears the road is truly long!!!!!

Secondly, my response to Mortee - yes an article should be for both on wiki...As I said if you accept one (the creation) and discredit the other (the creator) by this line of suggestion you should remove many other names from wikipedia and just retain the creation. This whole journey has become a non constructive farce.... Thewayweis (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I would have a look at WP:ITSA and WP:NRV to get a picture of the arguments being used. Shakespeare is notable because there are sources about him - not because he wrote the plays; they were a conduit to provide those sources. It appears that the village is notable, but the creator does not necessarily inherit the notability of the village, notability is not inherited. Only sources can establish this. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kisses Delavin[edit]

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

Reality show contestant. Not notable per WP:Notablity and fails to meet WP:BIO –Angelo 6397 ^{T A L K!} 13:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete a non-notable reality show contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shenzhou program. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 03:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shenzhou 12[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This seems to be WP:CRYSTALBALL. The only source seems to contain speculations and statements. I am not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources, nor any reliable sources to even verify the information present. In addition, the Chinese wikipedia doesn't seem to have this article as well zh:神舟十二号. I would prefer to delete this article as it is WP:TOOSOON at this time. No prejudice to recreation, once reliable sources actually emerge. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Shenzhou program (with no prejudice against deletion either). WP:CRYSTAL is the main reason why this wouldn't have standalone notability in addition to lack of a sources due to being a future event. The coverage on the Shenzhou program page is more than enough for a future event for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The content is not useful and speculation. I would say go ahead and delete it and perhaps salt it as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect per WP:ATD-R to Shenzhou program § Future missions for now, which has some content about this there. Also a valid search term. This has received some coverage, but not finding enough to qualify a standalone article at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per the request of the author. This does not preclude another article about the subject. Hut 8.5 22:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

George Ronald Richards[edit]

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

A minor functionary, there are no substantial sources about him. Awarded the OBE, but my last survey showed that a large proportion even of current OBE awardees are not covered on Wikipedia. It's mainly awarded for quiet work in the background. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The Australian Dictionary of National Biography entry covers WP:ANYBIO. Mortee (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I've blanked this and listed it at WP:CP for the blatant copy-pasting from the Australian Dictionary of National Biography page – whole sentences lifted verbatim – to be dealt with. It's probably eligible as a G12, as there's only one substantive contributor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See listing at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2017_March_4 —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. There's no indication here of anything that makes this person a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia article: he was a policeman and then deputy director of a (national) government department, but what did he achieve, do or say that anyone would want to read about? WP:ANYBIO is indeed satisfied by his inclusion in the Australian Dictionary of National Biography, but that criterion is quite specific that, while "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the […] standards", "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". It's my understanding – open to correction – that an OBE is a fairly mundane honour routinely dished out to civil servants inter alia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: - some quotes from the ADNB entry that might be relevant below. I'd say these are enough to warrant an article (as the ADNB clearly agreed). It includes a bibliography, too, so it should be possible to incorporate those sources.

"... deputy director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation..." (comparable to the FBI, according to our article)

"... sent to London to work with Military Intelligence, Section 5..." (MI5)

"... set in train the defection of Vladimir Petrov..."

"... served as chairman of the counter-subversion expert study group of SEATO..."

Mortee (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as a copyvio, with no prejudice against the creation of a new article on the same topic. ADB is usually a pretty good indicator that someone is notable and that multiple sources exist on them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Why delete first rather than rewriting now? I've been holding off editing because of the wording of the copyright template, waiting for that claim to receive attention, but if we agree that there should be an article about this person, shouldn't we rewrite this article rather than asking an administrator to delete it first? Mortee (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Virgin in Veil[edit]

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

Almost-notable band but not quite meeting any WP:BAND criteria for inclusion as far as I can tell. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:BAND criteria #4: Band has received coverage of their tours, mostly in the local language of the country (http://www.sanctuary.cz/12730-report-masquerade-virgin-veil-ve-vsetine, http://www.rumba.fi/live/eat-pussy-not-lamb-pitkaperjantai-raskaamman-livemusiikin-parissa-dubrovnikissa/, http://www.sonic-seducer.de/index.php/3290-death-rock-herbst-neue-alben-von-masquerade-und-virgin-in-veil-hier-komplett-anh http://www.cvltnation.com/cvlt-nation-interviews-virgin-veil/ etc.)
Radio plays on France's "Attitude FM 98.3fm": http://www.attitudefm.com/podcast/frontiere-rock-speciale-deathrock-du-20-09-2016/ (Playlist: https://www.facebook.com/ReadershipHostile/posts/1599960836975749)
WP:BAND criteria #5: Band is signed on Danse Macabre Records, a serious independant label with 20 years of existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagrra (talk • contribs) 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Cannot verify criterion 4, because it is not clear whether those sources are reliable or independent. Two of them appear to be blogs, one is just a directory listing, and one is an interview; none of those constitute the type of coverage we need.
FAILS criterion 5, because they have not released 2 albums under any notable label.
It isn't sufficient just to have radio plays; see criterion 11. They need to be played in rotation nationally. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes you're right about #5, apolgies. Found this for #4 ( http://imgur.com/a/RyyZm ) a feature of the band in nationally released magazine Sonic Seducer from Germany. Contains references about their tours and releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagrra (talk • contribs) 12:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete None of the article sources are reliable. None of the hits from google news are reliable sources. Other search tools come up empty. Delete. Tapered (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Band in nationally released magazine Sonic Seducer from Germany, article contains references about their tours and releases. ( Hoog, Karin. Sonic Seducer, November 2016, p108. Scan: http://imgur.com/a/RyyZm ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagrra (talk • contribs) 10:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tadhg Kelly[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP that doesn't establish notability JDDJS (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I can only find sources for the gamer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SOFTDELETE – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matt Mccall (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking significant, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:NOQUORUM soft delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tonight (Best You Ever Had)[edit]

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

Published sources are not discussing this song in depth. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete at this time. Sourcing of the article appears to have been substantially improved; first participant's reversal from delete to keep carries substantial weight in this determination. bd2412 T 02:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Amir Bramly[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He passed the Hebrew wikipedia (with no discussion on notability - just tone), and is amply sourced there. see - [19]. I will source all unsourced claims here. This is currently the largest Ponzi case ever in Israel - and is a significant amount also in dollar terms (more than 100 Million USD).Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Delete Neutral for now~~ Keep It looks like he is notable ~~but the article needs sourcing that addresses his pre-case notability and~~ his involvement in the alleged Ponzi scheme must be handled very carefully. ~~I will wait to see how the article evolves for a bit.~~ ~~This is currently a wholely negative BLP that is nearly unsourced and really should not be up. If it is improved I will change my !vote.~~ Also he has not been convicted so there is the matter of WP:BLPCRIME to consider. Jbh ^Talk 10:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 14:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stubbed the article. Looking for some sources that are about him that can be used to source the article that do not focus on the unproven fraud charges. Jbh ^Talk 11:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the charges - he himeself hasn't been convicted criminally - the case is ongoing. However, in civil court the companies were placed in final liquidation and -his own personal assets- are also under liquidation. In addition, a worker in his fund was recently convicted and sentenced in the criminal case as she placed a guilty plea-bargain plea ([20]). In this regard this case is much-much farther along than where Madoff was in January 2009 for instance - [21].

The fund / rubicon company / and Bramli himself - were all found in civil court to have their assets "tangled". Bramli was the public face of the companies. Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In terms of significance of the article - the main encyclopedic significance is the alleged Ponzi scheme. His activities as business man are marginal.Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Icewhiz: Please read Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. In particular please see BLPCRIME. We do not, in general, put indictments and accusations in biographies nor do we tie people indirectly to criminal activity unless they have been convicted. This goes double when it is the only material in a biography. It is possible you could find consensus for this material but I would suggest you bring it up at the BLP Noticeboard to get more input before adding such material. Jbh ^Talk 12:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The BLPCRIME issue is complex given the concurrent civil (where there has been some judgements) and criminal proceedings here (where he hasn't been convicted as of yet, co-conspirator had been convicted (plea-bargain)). If the consensus here is that this can't be mentioned - I think I'll wait until there is a final verdict in an Israeli criminal court to write this up here more extensively (with other bio material as well). He is very high profile in Israeli media prior to the case - [22] 313 news items for 2009-2014 (pre-troubles). In short - I will bow to your better judgement. Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If he has a lot of material pre-case then that can be used to balance out the article to avoid it being wholely negative and not WP:NPOV. Depending on how it is written, the civil case and, maybe, the investigation can be dealt with. BLPCRIME is not always an absolute bar but it requires a strong consensus and delicate/conservative handeling of the issues which is why I suggested discussing it at WP:BLPN. It might also be worthwhile to write separate articles about the case/investigation and funds (assuming they are notable per WP:ILLCON.)Jbh ^Talk 13:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete one sources is never enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

talk, ^Talk, talk Please take another look - I redid this more extensively - with plenty of sources, strictly NPOV, and leaving out BLPCRIME (which I did add as a one-liner - unresolved - in a separate edit). I think he should pass GNG - He has 1,100 news items in Israeli media - [23], including hundreds before 2014 (when his liqudity / investigation / etc started becoming an issue) - [24]. Originally my intention was to place a short summary stub in the English wikipedia - but this obviously didn't meet community guidelines on BLP (as this obviously focused on the most interesting bit) - this new more extensive re-edit should. Thank you.Icewhiz (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding WP:GNG - now have 45 references spanning 2012-2016, covering several different topics (from in-depth inteviews with Bramly, to specific issues he was involved with), from a number of sources: Calcalist, Globes (incl. Globes English when available (spotty)), TheMarker - these 3 are the leading Israeli economic papaers. Forbes Israel - probably ranks beneath these three for local finance. Yedioth Ahronoth - One of Israel's leading newspapers. The Times of Israel - English coverage of Israel. Haaretz English (TheMarker is affiliated with Haaretz - is an insert, so most finance stuff is there) - Israel's premier newspaper (roughly locally equivalent to NYT/WP). Israel Securities Authority - public warning against Amir Bramly (mentioned in text several times) and Kela. Israeli News Company - leading TV news in Israel. Bloomberg - mainly for company/executing info. ICE - a media site that covers media affairs in Israel Walla! - one of the leading Israeli news portals. Bizportal - Financial portal. Roughly locally equivalent to MarketWatch in local significance. Net Acre - local Acre newspaper, insignificant - there for color on hometown. Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - I admit the original had issues regarding tone and BLP policy. As it now stands (I even linked a Wikipedia:Orphan: Ezbob) - it is neutral tone-wise (if at all - too "pro Bramly"), and is amply-sourced, from all or almost all (and if I left anyone out - omission of mine, they have coverage) major Israeli publications, spanning ~~5+ years from 2012~~10+ years from 2006 (OK - I just added one from 2006, but from Haaretz on a business of his (with a quote from him) moving during to Tel-Aviv during the war). It is possible to source more, if needed, seeing he has over 1000 news items on google-news - [25]. Due to his very high profile(pre-troubles), he is notable beyond his business troubles/ponzi. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Updated: Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Please take another look, as the issues causing nomination (tone + BLP policy + sources) were rectified post listing with a major-major rewrite (Jbh- who made the initial PROD (on A7)- changed his vote to keep. Adam9007 changed the initial PROD to AFD, but hasn't looked since. John Pack Lambert - voted on the pre-rewrite stubbified version (and on that version his vote was correct - as it was missing sources that were mostly edited out)). This is a very high-profile individual in the Israeli business scene from before his troubles - and the alleged ponzi scheme and issue surrounding it (raising funds without a prospectus) have causes major ramifications with the local regulation/legislation regarding fund raising from the public. The current article (as opposed to the original) is very well sourced - over 60 sources from all major Israeli news outlets, covering a 10 year span. Some of these sources are in English (where possible - some of the local financial stuff is translated), the rest is in Hebrew.Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Over The Top (company)[edit]

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

Non-notable organization lacking non-trivial references. reddogsix (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as a run-of-the-mill company that does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. There is a huge number of references in the article, none of which does more than mention Over The Top in passing (in some cases there's not even a mention of the company's name). Several of the refs are different copies of the same text, which is not surprising if you look at the authors - a few people have written texts where they briefly quote the company's founder and have then sold the same text to different publishers. I'm sure it is good SEM tactics or whatever, but it doesn't make the company (nor its founder) notable for Wikipedia's purposes. --bonadea contributions talk 09:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG as I am able to find passing mention of the firm but unable to find substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

stay- over the top is a recognized company that has been listed on Forbes and spoken about on business.com and other recognised sources. the content might not be detailed enough, but it still deserves a chance on Wikipedia. I believe with time other sources can be added. it deserves a chance on Wikipedia.197.210.25.185 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Recognized by whom? Being recognized is not part of the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. Please see WP:ORG for the criteria. reddogsix (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete unambiguous promotion DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
stay - there is nothing promotional about the content, some links have been added and their sources have been retrived. Jamesflare (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards redirection. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eduwamp[edit]

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

Almost entirely empty, poorly written, the only source links to the Eduwamp's website, and seems to be highly promotional Terrariola (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect per WP:SNOW, to Institute of Engineering and Technology, DAVV#Start-ups - I was in the process of redirecting this article to the target when I noticed this AfD had appeared. There's no reason for a full discussion process about this. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete -- no useful content so preserving the history is not needed. Optionally redirect name only as suggested, at editorial discretion. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ninoy Aquino International Airport. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 03:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 1[edit]

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

Not notable independently from Ninoy Aquino International Airport. Redirect to Ninoy Aquino International Airport (nothing to merge as all of it is unsourced). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect - Per nom. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect or Delete. No reason to set this terminal apart from the airport.Glendoremus (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. It's a large important building and so it could have an article, but Ninoy Aquino International Airport#Terminal 1 already covers the entity in detail -- and is sourced, unlike this article. Nothing to merge, as there're no sources. Redirect if you want, but the argument against a redirect is that redirects are use partly to aid searching, and having two links that come up when the reader begins to type "Ninoy Aquino Internati..." in the search box is possibly confusing. Herostratus (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Herostratus. FWIW, I've been there. No big whoop. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? Take my opinion as redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect - An average of 12 page views per day in the life of the article is enough for me. TimothyJosephWood 14:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect - Described in detail in main article. --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 12:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect, for the reasons noted above (unsourced and not independently notable). I actually would prefer to "delete", because a redirect seems a bit silly (one has to type the name of the target article in the Search box before one can type the name of the instant article, so what's the point?). But, I'll 'go with the flow' here and call for a redirect. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nichari[edit]

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

There are no references and a web search doesn't turn up anything to easily show/support notability as an ethnic group. Phil (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Brahui people or perhaps Baloch people. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - I can't see any reason to redirect, personally. As the nominator has stated, this clearly falls well below any notability criteria. We have no solid evidence that this has anything to do with either the Brahui or Baloch people. Spiderone 09:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I see no problem with deleting, @Sitush: is an experienced contributor on these, perhaps they have a different opinion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CastleTown Shoppingworld[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Shopping centres are not inherently notable. 1 gnew hit only. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Local shopping centre with next to no significant notable coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment, looks like quite a large shopping centre - around 1200ft by 400ft, so maybe a redirect with a line or two in the Townsville article? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eclipse ERP[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. References within the article are a mix of the company's own websites, press releases, or articles about the company not the software. The parent company already has its own article at Epicor so there's no justification for this promotional piece. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. The parent company article does not mention Eclipse ERP at all. Also the parent company has nothing to do with the origins of Eclipse ERP. This is a major product that should be in a list with other ERP products already on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ERP_software_packages).--NqcRz (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have a read through Wikipedia:So your article has been nominated for deletion#AfD to see how you should be responding, and please remember to sign your posts in the future. Anyway, the argument that other articles exist is one that you should avoid during these discussions (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) because this discussion is strictly about this article, not others. Now, as I've outlined above, the three problems with your article are A) the General Notability Guideline does not appear to be met; B) the sources used in this article do not meet the requirement for Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources;and C) it has a promotional tone - "PR-speak" sticks out like a sore thumb. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep At least one of these sources is independent and reliable: mdm.com, reuters.com, infoworld.com, electricaltrends.com, ewweb.com, informationweek.com, asa.net, or finance.yahoo.com. Read through WP:NEWSORG --NqcRz (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reasons to keep this article: Market Share, Size, and Historical Significance.--NqcRz (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. The promotional tone can be adjusted. It would be helpful to know which sentences need to be paraphrased in different words to meet the requirement? - NqcRz (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This software is nearly 17 years old, there should be at least few reviews (not only online). NqcRz, your references are mostly about parent companies with only passing mentions (at best) of Eclispe ERP. If you could provide some reviews of this software (eg. in published magazines), it would help your cause. Many companies boast magazine awards/ratings for their software, maybe some of the previous owners had such list on its webpage, which we could use (with the help of web archives) in our hunt for better sources. Pavlor (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The article was absurdly promotional , but since it seems to have been a significant product, based on the market price of the company that made it, I decided to remove the promotionalism . Expecting a promotional author to learn to write a non-promotional article is usually unrealistic; if we are going o keep them, we need to revise them ourselves. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd agree with you if the promotional language was my only concern, but as I stated in the nomination rationale, the issue is that the GNG isn't met - there's no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, there's just press releases (which aren't independent, reliable sources), mentions in the websites of the various owners and articles about the company rather than the software product itself. The edits you've made have left all these unreliable sources in place, there's no third-party sources (and I've looked). Exemplo347 (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Pavlor and DGG, thank you for your input. I added another reference. At one point this software was called Intuit Eclipse DMS, Intuit Eclipse Distribution Management, and Activant Eclipse. --NqcRz (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's another press release. BusinessWire is a PR website - you need to find Reviews - detailed coverage from an unrelated third party. Press releases are never considered reliable sources. Read through WP:RS - don't just keep adding press releases, articles that all say "Company X bought Company Y" and links to the company's own websites. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Added two unrelated third party reviews. One review is a positive, the second is negative. --NqcRz (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
alas, both of them are a company newsletter from a company whose sole business seem to providing 3rd party paid support for Eclipse. NqcRz, do you even look where your refs are coming from? Or didn't you read it carefully enough to understand the connection? If you don't understand the industry well enough to immediately spot this sort of thing, you shouldn't be writing articles about it. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DGG, I do understand the connection very well, but didn't think its going to be an issue. I am new to writing on wikipedia, so learning the ropes as we go. Thank you for your guidance and patience. --NqcRz (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment As I wrote in my first comment above, many companies boast their media coverage on their webpage. These are entries from archived original Eclipse webpage: [26] (The Electrical Distributor Magazine (TED) November 2000), [27] (ASA News March/April 1999), [28] (ASA News March/April 1998; passing mentions only). I don´t know these sources, so I can´t say how independent on Eclipse they are. Pavlor (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is similar version of the article directly from ASA.NET.[29] --NqcRz (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment References were updated to show Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as described in WP:NEWSORG. There is still work in progress. --NqcRz (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's just more and more PR stuff - regurgitated press releases. My personal recommendation is that you should be asking for the article to be moved into Draft space until you've finished finding sources, and then submitting your draft for review before publishing it. Wikipedia articles are meant to be complete, not works-in-progress. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you sure about that? WP:BEFORE Heading C states that "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.". Reading further under heading D, it appears that incomplete articles are not to be deleted, but rather improved. I am not referring in any way to the article at hand, merely that AfD is about whether the subject matter is deserving of an article, not a judgment of the quality of the article in its current state. Jacona (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I knew something was not right. Jacona, thank you for pointing out that Exemplo347 is wrong. --NqcRz (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Jacona clearly says, their opinion has no bearing on the current discussion - my reasons for deletion are stated clearly at the top of this discussion and have not been addressed. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exemplo347 is wrong again. Notability, References, and Parent Company were addressed. "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Read through WP:NNC and WP:NPOSSIBLE. --NqcRz (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take a breath. This isn't something to be taking personally. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NUKEANDPAVE aka delete. The article is still promotional and looks ref bombed. As can been seen from the discussion and the article history, the article's creator is most likely affiliated with the company: Special:Contributions/NqcRz. If the company is indeed notable, then an independent editor would create it some time down the road. There's no rush to achieve this state however. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment It is hard to find subject matter expert that is not affiliated with the company. This is probably why no article existed on this topic up to this point. In this case the "PR" label does not apply to every source. The article's creator is not affiliated with the company, and there was no intention of making it a promotional piece. However if majority decides to delete, then move it to the Draft space, and someone needs to rewrite it. --NqcRz (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Added section on Criticism to discredit any accusation of promotional article. --NqcRz (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I mentioned majority above, but I was wrong, the Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. Read through WP:CLOSEAFD. --NqcRz (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't need to quote policies and guidelines to editors who have more experience in these matters than you. This is a routine process, not aimed at any particular editor, a part of Wikipedia's integrity procedures. Deletion of this article wouldn't mean that the article can never exist. It just means that the General Notability Guideline and the Notability Guideline for Software hasn't been satisfied by the sources that exist. Calm yourself down. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article falls into these categories: "software with significant historical or technical importance" and "Software from the era of 8-bit personal computers may be notable even if it was distributed or documented under pseudonyms." --NqcRz (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. Why don't we let other editors comment now? Both of us have made our point so there's no need for the endless comments. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect (or merge) to Epicor; while the ERP's notability is in doubt, redirects are cheap and serve the purpose of putting enough information in one place so as to be useful.Jacona (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Be nice to see other editor than the 3 who have !voted chime in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note - There are actually comments from five separate editors, but never mind. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Notable software, Wired has an article about it, dunno why it is not ref'd. Also as noted above, parent article is not inclusive. ~~To all the editors who have commented but haven't voted keep: vote keep.~~ Nom tried to speedy it.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, what an odd comment. Please point out "all the editors" who haven't !Voted. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DGG? I don't see his vote. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it's there and it has been for a while. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And to think I just saw the optometrist. Thanks for pointing that Exemplo347 L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note I'd be receptive to a Redirect or Merge if it'll wrap this AfD up. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the concerns raised about recentism it may be appropriate to revisit this outcome in a year or two. Note that the article was moved to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys during the discussion. Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. Not everything the Trump administration does is a "controversy" requiring an article. This is not on par with the Bush dismissal of U.S. attorneys in 2006. In fact, this is not unprecedented. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - This is not a controversy, nor is the page written from an unbiased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCPlanner (talk • contribs) 11:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. *sigh* Why must we immediately nominate articles for deletion? This is clearly a notable incident that is receiving significant coverage. Let the article snowball... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Then we'd be creating articles about all sorts of trivial things and spend most of our time parsing what should be kept and what should be deleted. Really this is WP:TOOSOON to be creating an article. And I have to note that Another Believer is the article creator. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Yes, sorry, I should have noted that I created the article. Thanks for doing so. I disagree with your reasoning entirely, though. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect/merge with Presidency of Donald Trump, I believe this is too trivial and has happened multiple times in the past: see [30], it is not unprecedented; we don't have articles for all of those events (except for the midterm dismissal), it is common for Presidents to dismiss Attorneys once they take office. MB298 (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete – This looks like a routine procedure every time a new administration comes in, fashionable anti-Trump hyperventilation notwithstanding. — JFG ^talk 07:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep -- Passes notability, plenty of WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reliable sources do not guarantee notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete – This is not a controversy. Former President Clinton directed the late, former Attorney General Janet Reno to do the exact same thing that Trump had Jeff Sessions do. It is simply part of the tradition of passing the control of government from one President to the next. If it deserves coverage then it should be merged into the article about the Trump Admin or the article about the Justice Department or the article about Presidential transition, etc. But wherever it is moved or merged it needs to have its name changed to something that is not so blatantly a violation of NPOV.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What specific speedy delete criteria do you believe applies? Neutrality^talk 22:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Here are a couple more sources that demonstrate that this is not a "controversy": [31][32] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I am open to different page titles, and the article does mention that Sessions' move is not unprecedented. That doesn't change the fact that the move received plenty of coverage to justify a standalone article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - There is lots of coverage, I agree with that. But, most of it is of the WP:SENSATIONAL variety. I think we all have our guards up so high because of Trump and all of the things the Trump administration is doing, and the media is part of it, breathlessly reporting everything in sensational ways. Many things (cough*Muslim ban*cough) deserve it, but asking the U.S. attorneys to resign at the beginning of the administration is not that. The last three presidents did the same exact thing, except they were a bit more deliberate about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Sure, some are sensational, and we can include media's reaction in the article, but many of the sources are also just sharing news. The administration's decision impacts many people and jurisdictions, hence the widespread coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - There is a plenty of coverage, but that fact alone does not support notability of the article. The topic is banal and commonplace. It is worth a mention or two in the Trump article or in the DOJ article, etc. But an article all to itself is not justfied. Also, the name of the article speaks to the fact that it is not deserving of an article topic. The word "controversy" is not really used in the reliable sources. Why the use of the word "controversy" when the Slate magazine article, not a hotbed of conservative thought, calls the whole thing much to do about nothing. It seems a bit like the title is a stretch to justify an article where no one exists. We can't name an article a controvesy when Slate specifically states that it is not a controversy and only the article creator really thinks it is a controversy. It needs to be either merged or moved or fully deleted, but kept as an article? No.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        As I mentioned, I'm open to other article titles. I went with the current title based on the name of the 2006-related article. How about just "2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys"? I'd move the page but I'm not sure this should be done during an active AfD discussion...? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ABC/AP report: It is not unusual for U.S. attorneys, who are appointed by presidents, to be asked to resign when a new president takes office, especially when there is a change of party at the White House.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, we've established that the move is not unprecedented. An event does not need to be unprecedented to be notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I created a discussion on the article's talk page re: the word "controversy". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with Presidency of Donald Trump: There is a Trump controversy several times a day and this one happens to occur whenever there is a new administration. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Unprecendented press coverage. While the dismissal of attorneys has happened in the past, the amount of controversies does make this particularly notable. Eccekevin (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The forced resignation of Preet Bharara alone is very interesting, since he very effectively prosecuted Wall Street post 2009. Re notability: there are plenty of articles about boats that are only notable because they sank. No clamor there. Tempest in a teapot? time will tell. Twang (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I think this meets the hurdle, mostly on the Preet Bharara element. It's true that mass dismissals have happened in the past, but as the sources reflect, the specific context and timing of this one make it distinctive. (And, as pointed out above, an event does not need to be unprecedented to be notable). Alternatively — and this would require a lot more work but would be superior and better for the reader — I would suggest a merge/redirect into a future article on United States Department of Justice during the Trump administration, which could cover this and a lot more ground (marijuana policy, crime policy, the Sally Yates dismissal, etc.) without overwhelming another article. Neutrality^talk 23:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This has significant media coverage for the surprise of the announcements of the resignations of 46 US Attorneys at once, many were not expected to resign on Friday, and the firing of Preet Bharara is significant in itself as he had been asked to stay on previously and has now been fired, similar to Sally Yates, whose dismissal has its own Wikipedia article. Since Attorney General Janet Reno did something similar in the past, perhaps the article should be moved to "2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys" as has been mentioned earlier, however this article does not merit deletion as it passes WP:NOTABILITY from media coverage. Zbase4 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After reading the arguments presented, I am changing my vote to keep. MB298 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for now. Whether this is unprecedented or not is irrelevant. The point is it has received extensive coverage from reliable sources. I think it's too early to nominate this for deletion, since this is still receiving continuous coverage. Let's wait until this ends, see if it will still deserve an article and then maybe merge it to Presidency of Donald Trump or First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. But for now, I'd say keep it. Also, per other comments, I support removing "controversy" from the title. κατάστασ η 01:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep but consider removing "controversy" from the title. However I think that might be a discussion for the article talk page.ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple editors have made this suggestion, and I (article creator) don't object. You can comment on the article's talk page, or if it's not against rules to move an article during an active AfD discussion, that'd be fine. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Recentrism, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Eric Holder has been quoted as saying in regards to firing attorneys in the past,"Elections matter. It is our intention to have the U.S. attorneys that are selected by President Obama in place as quickly as we can."^[1] There is a fake news epidemic in the mainstream media and the "2017 dismissal of attorneys controversy" is a perfect example. Eoswins (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)— Eoswins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Keep for now. Let the article evolve on its own, it looks like a good merge candidate after a few days of article development. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ http://www.vox.com/2017/3/10/14890546/trump-us-attorneys-resigned

Keep and rename the now vaguely-named article on the similar Bush firing of attorneys called "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy to "2006 Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" -- and, in agreement with ErieSwiftByrd, choose another word instead of "controversy" for both articles. cat yronwode, not logged in. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this is most certainly NOT a controversy (note naming already violates Wikipedia NPOV) and is a routine procedure that was done in the past under a number of previous administrations. Wikipedia has no place for the newpaper sensationalism like articles. (see this as well) --CyberXRef^☎ 07:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep/Comment I am inclined to keep per the amount of coverage this topic has received, but would also like to say it is probably to soon to tell as this even happened yesterday and it might take a day or two to see what impact this event will have. Inter&anthro (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep/Comment This event is controversial in large part due to the public blessing that Trump and Sessions gave Preet Bharara during Trump's first days as president elect (as noted by almost every news story). Given the high profile cases that Bharara is investigating and prosecuting, and the fact that Trump's allegations of wire tapping within a jurisdiction Bharara would investigate, elevate this to full controversy, and worthy of its own article. Spawn777 (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENTCRITERIA. "Routine kinds of news events [...] – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." I don't think there's an enduring significance here, those people were going to be replaced anyway, and previous presidents have done so too. HaEr48 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment/Question: There are now 2 merge banners at the top of the article. The discussion at Talk:United States Department of Justice during the Trump administration seems unnecessary and should be closed -- the target page is just a redirect, so if we want attorney dismissal content to live there, we could just move this page. Is there an admin who can assist with the closing of this merge discussion? Also, several people have opposed usage of the word "controversy" -- I am fine with removing this word from the article's title, but can the page be moved while there is an ongoing AfD discussion? I'd move the page myself but I want to follow rules. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Striking out the note re: 2 merge banner, which have been removed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep , although the title may be modified: It is already as a reference in google news...

Keep. Obvious WP:GNG pass. The actual text of NOTNEWS says to treat recent news like any other article. There is more than enough notability for this. The only quibble I have with it is that I want a title without "controversy" - for example, by amputating the unneeded word at the end of the title. It's a notable dismissal of US attorneys even if there were not a single person arguing about it. Wnt (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, but I agree with Wnt on all counts. So I suggest changing title to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. Orser67 (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Per WP:EVENT, this is notable because, "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." This clearly has widespread non-routine coverage and affects federal law enforcement throughout the United States. There is no requirement that an event be unprecedented (we have articles on every Super Bowl, and every presidential inauguration), although some parts of this do seem to be unprecedented. It just has to be notable. At least two aspects in particular are receiving non-routine coverage: 1. Preet Bharara was fired (he did not resign). 2. There are earlier reports that he was previously asked to stay on. No strong preference on the title. Mattflaschen - Talk 22:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Yeah, "presumed". That means it's not a guarantee.
Keep - Keep per more than sufficient coverage and WP:LASTING. The title may need to be altered, but per the sources, the dismissals are controversial. And that controversy is WP:Verifiable.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- How is WP:LASTING demonstrated? This hasn't led to anything further than the dismissal of the attorneys. There's no indication this will be investigated, because it's the prerogative of the POTUS/DOJ. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It's clear this won't be deleted. I won't withdraw, though. If this isn't merged, I may renominate for deletion in a year or so, when the recentism has faded, because I think that's clouding the judgment of many of these votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This is a routine event. Every president asks U.S. Attorneys appointed by the previous administrations to resign. Bill Clinton asked 93 U.S. Attorneys to resign. Articles like this dilute the credibility of Wikipedia. To maintain its reputation Wikipedia needs to refrain from publishing subjective material. The only news worthy element of this routine event is Preet Bharara's refusal to resign like the other 44 and the 93 who resigned at Clinton's request. But is grandstanding by someone who is widely known to have political ambitions worthy of a Wikipedia article? I think not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.226.211.67 (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — 93.226.211.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Delete Agree with the above comment - every president does this - Clinton, Bush, Obama did it. Because news groups are blowing it out of proportion for political reasons does NOT make it worthy of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia should be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.156.40.38 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — 165.156.40.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Delete This is a routine non-event. Janet Reno and Eric Holder both did it. Or move to Preet Bharara page as he drove any ostensible controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfrichardn (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep -- while I understand the motivation for delete, I also think there is merit in documenting the people from the previous administration that a president fires in the first 100 days. Why are we stopping with lawyers though... I think eventually if this article is to pass the Ten Year Test it should document EVERYONE that was let go from the Obama-to-Trump transition, not just lawyers. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment that's a pretty good idea for a list, imo. I wonder if we could find any comprehensive sources for that. Orser67 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, seconding suggestions to move 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys, and move Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy to 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. -Apocheir (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This event has inspired controversy, so it is controversial. However, I am not certain if it is sufficiently notable. (To put it another way, will the average well-informed American remember this in 12 months?) Usually the USAs are dismissed at the start of a new administration, but not usually in this fashion. The last 2 presidents did not repeat the mass purge that Janet Reno did at the start of the Clinton administration, but requested resignations as replacements were appointed. Some of these firings and resignations were under somewhat unusual circumstances. The situation with the Manhattan USA is somewhat unusual, but by itself that could be on his page rather than requiring its own page. I think someone may have slightly jumped the gun on posting this article, but that's debatable. I would not jump to deleting it so quickly, but if the turmoil turns out to be little more than it seems so far, then the information on this page can be added to other pages and the article deleted. If this controversy turns out to be bigger then the page is warranted. At the time that it first emerged, nobody thought that Whitewater would take 8 years to resolve.--AlanK (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete A fairly glaring case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Clearly fails WP:10YT and WP:SUSTAINED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notice – Given numerous comments along these lines, I have boldly shortened the title to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys, per consensus and WP:NPOVTITLE. No prejudice about the AfD outcome. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, thank you! I went ahead and marked two talk page discussions re: the word "controversy" as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to wikinews, which is what stuff like this is meant for. If no consensus to get rid of this article, at least get rid of the "controversy" title which is not justified unless we are going to add it to every article title for a government action criticized by the opposition. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NPalgan2: "Controversy" had already been removed from the article's title. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* Oops, I forgot that the AfD title wouldn't update. But if this incident does not clear the bar of being called a controversy, what's the point of a stand-alone article? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I think that the people who are stating that it is not controversial really mean that it should not be controversial. In fact, it is getting significant press coverage and merits coverage here. However, getting rid of the word "controversy" in the title was a good move. History will determine what lasting effect, if any, it has.
Keep Removing the word "controversy" was helpful and should be done retroactively for the 2006 article and housekeeping done to assure that Wikilinks are preserved. Those earlier removals, in the middle of the second GWB term, seven on Pearl Harbor Day a decade ago, were extremely controversial and memorable, some clearly done with palpable and specific political motivations (i.e., to effect the illegal major suppression of voting rights, for instance, and in possible retaliation for the prosecutions of corrupt Republican officeholders such as the just recently released Rick Renzi), and involved extensive congressional hearings and the arguably perjurious testimony by the sitting U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales and DOJ officials Bradley Schlozman and Monica Goodling. Cleaning house in a more orderly fashion, but done largely for reasons of political patronage is radically different than simultaneous cashiering a notable number of such officeholders mainly effectuated to cover up actual or intended criminality, or involving intended black-letter DOJ policy violations. The firing of David Iglesias, Carol Lam, Bud Cummins, Todd Graves and Paul Charlton, all Republicans, were particularly notable and sordid, yet most were given months to "clean out their desks." Preet Bharara is not the only USAAG in the midst of important prosecutions, but i.e., so is the USAAG for the Southern District of Mississippi who is handling a wide ranging ongoing political corruption case, apparently with yet undisclosed indictments. Activist (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I note that about 20 out of 30 editors support keeping the article at this point with no one opposed to dropping the word "controversy" from the title. Activist (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for now The changing of the guard is normal, dismissal with immediate effect is absolutely unprecedented. Even Reno's resignation request order had a grace period (granted, one that not all elected to take). Wholesale removal of half of the US Attorneys is not exactly normal. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep – Satisfies WP:GNG; made global headlines, was unprecedented in the approach that was taken. —MelbourneStar☆^talk
Keep. This is a well-sourced article about a notable topic. The bold change of title is welcome. Not all reporting of the event is sensational. Not-unprecedented isn't an argument: the fact it isn't unprecedented is covered in the article and anyway, because of the Jeff Sessions Russia (controversy?) thing, significant actions of his are more like to attract "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for now. Right now, this is news coverage. If it later proves to have enduring notability, then we could revisit. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I agree with the removal of the unnecessary word "controversy" from the title, and also with the suggestion to rename Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy as 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys for disambiguation. This does not seem to be a routine action, at least not in the way it was done, so it is notable historically as well as by the extensive media coverage. It raises questions about the independence of U.S. attorneys (as do dismissals by earlier presidents on both sides of politics), which we cannot discuss as WP:OR but could cite from secondary sources and academic publications. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. It was treated in the global news media as a notable and highly noteworthy event. Mothmothmoth (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments/Questions: 1) Can an admin close this discussion already? Clearly, this article should be kept. 2) Many editors have expressed the need to move the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy to 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. However, this move impacts other articles, too: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline, Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary, as well as Category:Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy. Does a separate discussion need to take place specifically for these articles (and category), or is an admin willing to move all of these pages together? I'm not sure how this works, but there seems to be a pretty clear consensus to move the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy article for disambiguation purposes and consistency. FYI, one editor has questioned if "U.S. attorneys" should be replaced with "United States attorneys" in the articles' titles, so that's another thing to keep in mind. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- We need to consider merging, and definitely not follow that example this time! For Pete's sake! Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- This is not a "keep" consensus. I agree with Octoberwoodland below that it looks more like no consensus to delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - This Afd should be closed as "no consensus". From the current votes, it's clear the article should be kept for now. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really? I'd say this is an overwhelming vote to keep the article, but I'll let a closing admin decide. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be a no consensus, which has the same effect as a keep, but this isn't overwhelming at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I mentioned above, I anticipate renominating this for deletion in several months or a year, when the WP:RECENTISM has faded. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be the second unnecessary deletion discussion, but you do you. :p ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eh I'm not seeing new news coverage on this topic or any suggestion it has WP:LASTING notability, so again we disagree. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep -- most of those dismissed are notable individuals. Separately, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy exists and is not at AfD. I would support a move to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys as more factual. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @K.e.coffman: Regarding your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, the 2006 U.S. Attorney firing was unprecedented. A new administration often (see Clinton, Bush, and Obama) cleans house of the USA's appointed by the last president. They don't do it in the middle of the administration because of politics. Also, the fact that many of these USA's are notable does not make their dismissal a notable event of its own, it means their bios can cover the content adequately. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gritt[edit]

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

self-referential tracklist. No suggestion of notability Rathfelder (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Not notable WP:NALBUM Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NALBUM, and no in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creative License[edit]

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

No real notability. There is one significant article in the Boston Globe but it is mainy a bit of colour about taking something local to New York fringe festival. Awards it was nominated for are not notable. Boneymau (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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