< 11 March	13 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Crisp[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to In the Zone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breathe on Me[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). Limited evidence of independent notability. All of the reviews of the song are from album reviews. The song does not appear to be enough significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources to justify an article. I am proposing deletion to prevent the article from being recreated, but a redirect to the album article can also be suitable.

This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per comments said above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to In the Zone the only viable source outside of album reviews that isn't filled with artist/label commentary giving it any decent amount of attention is Muumuse (I see two pieces from it are being used). One good unaffiliated publication giving it independent coverage simply isn't enough to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to In the Zone. Carbrera (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to In the Zone, if it is expanded upon in said article. Aleccat 23:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to In the Zone.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to In the Zone. Despite the numerous sources cited, not enough are present to establish WP:SIGCOV of the song. Most sources are about the album or Spears in general. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shawna Pandya[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article, as it stands now, is largely promotional and based on primary or unreliable sources. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, nor does it pass subject specific guidelines at WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Pburka (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, [1], [2], [3], [4], and to a degree these as well: [5], [6], [7], [8]. Yvarta (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. There is not any reliable source about her with any depth. There is only a brief mention that she might fly into space. The rest is just quick facts. WP:TOOSOON. She's not a professor, so can't even rely on that. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind clarifying, do you feel that the sources listed above are too short, or do you feel the content within those sources is not deep enough in terms of content matter? Yvarta (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All notability (including the one apparently-reliable source in the article, the Hindustani Times article) seems to be centered around a media hoopla based on claims that she has been shortlisted to be the third Indian woman in space. Besides failing WP:BIO1E, those claims turned out to be false [9]. And without them, she is just yet another person who wishes she were an astronaut. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only posible notability is based on false claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - flurry of interest when she was "shortlisted" and then again when she wasn't. Otw, nothing really notable going on.Glendoremus (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable individual that fails to meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was covered by RS in the news prior to the 2017 mistake. I've added sources to the article, passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:HEY and the work of User:Megalibrarygirl. Combination of newsworthiness and background now meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 19:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would draw your attention to "as it stands now" in the call for deletion. This was the first article of a new editor. Rather than having it deleted, Pburka, wouldn't it have been more constructive to look for supporting sources as others have now done?--Ipigott (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for a poorly worded nomination. While the promotional aspect of the article could be fixed through editing, I did not feel that it could be improved to pass WP:ANYBIO. The only significant coverage is candidacy in a pretty obscure private astronaut program, which would make this WP:BLP1E; reality show contestants get more coverage than that and we don't grant them notability. The only other coverage she's received was for a local charity event, essentially a community interest story. If the article is kept, I'll be happy to help clean up the promotional aspects. Pburka (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability considerations - a non-astronaut and attending a charity event don't cut it.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't attend a charity event: she created the charity event. The coverage of her as an astronaut candidate, her charity work all taken together mean she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see the independent coverage needed for WP:GNG. 2601:248:4500:9523:43C:32C0:AC8B:3F10 (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. triviala awards and accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GMI Media[edit]

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

Company fails WP:GNG. Unable to locate anything in-depth. The company website domain is also for sale so likely defunct and will not be able to improve page in the future. CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company. Pburka (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A non-notable, probably defunct company that fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:COMPANY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garfish Music[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find anything in-depth and the official website looks like it redirects to something other than the company (defunct?). CNMall41 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material while also managing to be promotional: "Richard Berg, the CEO, is most famous for inventing the voice..." (??). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with fellow editors and believe this piece to fail WP:GNG, as well as being a case of WP:TOOSOON.V.Putnam (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Sharma (biotechnologist)[edit]

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

This article is drawn on non-independent sources, with a few others thrown in which are not actually about the subject. I think this fails WP:PROF. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He only got his doctorate in 2012, so may well achieve notability, but currently he fails WP:ACADEMIC. Pburka (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. It's too soon. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is another of the same name [10] but it is not this guy WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Doesn't have the independent coverage for WP:GNG. 2601:248:4500:9523:43C:32C0:AC8B:3F10 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There appear to be at least six other researchers with the same name: a thin film expert at Kanpur, a medical researcher in New Jersey, a chemist at Roorkee, a diabetes specialist formerly in the UK and now in Dehradun, a dental consultant in Dubai, and another biotechnologist at GNDU Amritsar (still there from 2008-2014 so not the same one as the subject). The others all have more highly cited works in Google scholar, making it difficult to find this one's scholarly impact. I went through 12 pages of Google scholar results for this author name, getting down to papers with around 30 citations each, without finding any by the subject. And his supposedly "most downloaded" paper (meaning, one of 25 papers that were the most downloaded from some specific journal in the last 90 days), "Antibacterial activities of medicinal plants used in Mexican traditional medicine", has only 4 citations, so that doesn't help. With no other claims of notability than scholarly impact, and insufficient evidence of scholarly impact to keep the article on that basis, we should delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete David Eppstein's explanation puts things quite well. Sharma may well at some point reach the point of being an impactful academic, but he has not yet reached that point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PROF and WP:ACADEMIC.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep WP:SNOW Jayron 32 15:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Dutch-Turkish diplomatic incident[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS; minor diplomatic flare-up (contrivance by both parties on the basis of domestic politics), article justified on basis of recentism. If content to be retained, probably warrants merging either with Netherlands–Turkey relations or Turkish constitutional referendum, 2017. Mélencron (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly, this is not a minor diplomatic flare up. We're talking about flag burning, closing embassies, threatening with sanctions, blocking consulates, deporting ministers and a prime minister referring to their NATO-ally as fascists and Nazi-remnants. Also, as far as I can see now the subject indeed has minuscule sections in the two aforementioned articles (Netherlands–Turkey relations and Turkish constitutional referendum, 2017) but that information does not add up. One section uses Turkish sources, the other uses Dutch/European sources. If anything, that should be an argument for retention of the 2017 Dutch-Turkish diplomatic incident-article, as a place were views and possibly consensus on the incident can be gathered.AKAKIOS (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content already available in the two articles mentioned in the nom (and if those sections are deficient, that should be addressed, but is not an argument to keep this article). Too soon to tell whether this will have any lasting effects. For Pete's sake, this happened yesterday evening! This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. --Randykitty (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it's false and incorrect to claim this happened yesterday evening; this has been developing for weeks. AKAKIOS (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep content is notable, well sourced and too long for a merge. --Fixuture (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "content is notable", could you expand on that? How does this meet the guideline for notability of events? I cannot see this suqbble meet any of the criteria listed. Just saying that something is notable isn't enough... --Randykitty (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can't see how anyone could consider this event to be not notable. And it meets all the inclusion criterias on that page. --Fixuture (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Objectively, how could you not consider this irrelevant? AKAKIOS (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why the rush to AfD for this? There's no deadline or hurry for Wikipedia. The nominator should try for AfD again in a few weeks or months if there's no sustained news coverage. As for the "why not merge..." point raised by the nominator - we have Merger Discussions for that kind of thing. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it's the other way around. Before you create an article, you show that it is notable. There is indeed no deadline, so what's the hurry in creating this article before we know whether this is going to have any lasting significance? Despite Fixuture's claim, this doesn't meet a single one of the criteria of WP:EVENT. The article creator should try to create this again in a few weeks or months is there's going to be sustained news coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm again sorry, but this is totally untrue. In fact this article meets most if not all of the criteria of WP:EVENT. 1) This event has already had major effects on the views and behaviors of societies and is directly connected to important legislation and an election. 2) As for its geographical scope, it has been reported extensively in both local and major international news outlets thereby also meeting the 3) 'Depth of coverage-criterium'.4) It has multiple and diverse sources, meeting the 'diversity of sources-criterium'. Honestly, how can you claim this article does not meet WP:EVENT when it so evidently does? AKAKIOS (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(rather)Keep I can in some way understand the position to say this incident is not relevant enough. It is also very young. However it reminds me a bit to the incident that happened some time ago, when a Russian fighter jet was shot down by Turkish military, causing immediate diplomatic tensions. Yet both nations it seems came closer pretty soon after that. This incident right now is, to my opinion, on a similar tensed level. Regarding the shootdown there is a particular article. In my opinion, eventhough this situation is pretty fresh, it is definitely worth an single article.--Joobo (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying this.AKAKIOS (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an argument to avoid in this kind of discussions... --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Exemplo347 -Pivox (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This incident is serious enough to warrant an article. It is being widely reported worldwide. At best, the nomination for deletion was premature. Mjroots2 (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a serious incident. And it is a developing story, I think even more coverage will be witnessed. Kavas (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yep, and like any good newspaper, we have to report on it, right? --Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Perhaps I'm the only one to find this ironic, but Wikinews, which unlike WP was actually created to report on current events, still has no article about this... --Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC describe it as an unprecedented diplomatic crisis. Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very noteworthy and significant especially giving both countries are NATO members. GWA88 (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another !vote solidly based in policy! To all people participating in this debate: please be aware that just saying "this is important" or something similar is not a policy-based !vote and likely to be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: So when does it become noteworthy? I am asking this, cause i can understand your point, yet imo this incident definitely is extraordinary and very unique, particularly regarding the fact that Turkey is actually a Nato ally of Europe and also of the Netherlands.--Joobo (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable incident which Turkey claims will have repercussions. It is probably essential to understand this incident to understand the Turkey-Netherlands relationship. Kind regards, 92.108.198.54 (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is me. Timelezz (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Akakios; this isn't a minor diplomatic encounter, saying that embassies are being threatened and sanctions are possible. This could be trouble for neighboring countries as well as NATO or the United Nations. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but this is still a big deal. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Relatively minor dispute as of now. We can speculate all we want about what might happen in the future, but as of now this is just a war of words with little significance. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:Snow. I can't imagine any likely scenario where a consensus to delete would develop over the next few days. -2003:CA:83C4:CF00:6C88:B805:BD0D:5055 (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Delete !vote addressed by discovery of new links and nominator's subsequent comment. Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caja de Ingenieros[edit]

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

Unremarkable company; Google search reveals few sources, so it is therefore non-notable. Quasar G ^{t - c} 18:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources except for the company's homepage.2602:30A:2ED1:2EE0:C75:A3A0:1702:11EA (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A notable bank with many Spanish language sources available, e.g. [11], [12], [13], [14]. Easily passes WP:NCORP. Pburka (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I nominated this for deletion, but I agree with Pburka and would withdraw the nomination if there was not a vote for delete. When I performed a Google search, the search engine gave me only the company website and their social media pages (Google must have been filtering results by language, but didn't recognise these websites as Spanish), which led me to believe there were no news sources and the company was non-non-notable. Quasar G ^{t - c} 21:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Kafka[edit]

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

Massive puff piece article, e.g. first reference isn't to him but by his company:Prince Media. Second ref is a list of restaurants.

Fails BLP Process. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I stopped reading after the second sentence of the lead, which used "it's" incorrectly. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE - A7. Alexf^(talk) 18:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chirag jani[edit]

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

Autobiography, does not meet WP:ENT. SilverplateDelta (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notabilty. Created by a user who is almost certainly the subject of the article. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umma (2011 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and importantly WP:GNG. No reliable sources have covered this movie. Jupitus Smart 18:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-delete A7. (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IEdit Network[edit]

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

Non-notable company. WP:BEFORE shows no references in reliable sources.] The only source provided (or, indeed, avaliable) is their own storefront. WP:GNG failure. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA WP:COI article on a web design company. Nothing provided or found indicates more than a run-of-the-mill firm going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. (I have also flagged this CSD A7 as I see no credible claim to notability.) AllyD (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to StarStruck (season 3). Compromise between delete and merge. (non-admin closure) J 947 04:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Allie[edit]

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

Allie was a reality television show contestant, who then had some minor TV roles and now works in PR. None of this rises to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 17:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to StarStruck (season 3). Pburka (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with StarStruck: The Nationwide Invasion. He doesn't have notability independent of this show. Imalawyer (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digeponics[edit]

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

Not a commonly used term. The paper cited as the sole reference here has been cited only once a/c Google Scholar.In addition, Google shows another paper about it by the same authors. There are a few scattered refs in the web. The name seems to have been used as a company name, DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 17:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this neologism per WP:NOTDICT. Pburka (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a word coined to describe a small-scale, demonstration pilot. No evidence that the concept or the word has caught on.Glendoremus (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a term invented by the authors of the paper, identified as the sole source, with little other coverage, so fails the GNG. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I'm not convienced that this would even make it into wikitionary. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 21:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and policy, especially WP:NEO and WP:SIGCOV. This word has not "taken off" yet. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, neologism that is not yet notable. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:SOFTDELETE applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Job and the Snake[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable subject. It's not clear whether it had a real professional Off-Broadway production was as not referenced and no details from a google search. Lots of primary sources. Reference 2 in the Niagara Falls Review is a profile of an actor that does not mention this musical. Boneymau (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 17:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant, independent coverage of this play. One reference in a regional source about a performance in Niagra. Otherwise, most of the references come from a website owned/managed by the principal authors.Glendoremus (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yadu Vijayakrishnan[edit]

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

Non notable film director. Fails WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. No proper sources for the person and none of his creations are notable as well. Jupitus Smart 17:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is yet another badly formatted stubs of Indian film makers that are just a wall of facts thrown together, without any showing of notability, which is not inheritied from their parents. Directors and writers are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Dragomir[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion was contested, however the underlying notability concerns still remain. He has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Still as non notable as he was the first time. Fenix down (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there appears to be some articles that meet WP:GNG since the previous AFD. See here, here, [15]. Nfitz (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nfitz's supplied news refs. I think he now meets WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Nfitz's comment and rational. Keep or delete, it seems that it may be WP:TOOSOON as of only 17 years of age very few footballers pass [WP:GNG]] and WP:NFOOTY. Regardless the article will either have to be recreated or substantially expanded in the future, however I think Keep is the best situation here. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Ivelinov Minchev[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD, at Nikolay Minchev. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable footballer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Wajahat Ali[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual. News search not very positive: [16], whilst a broader search, whilst showing that there are may people with the same name, do not indicate the nobility of this article's subject. Fails all the criteria of WP:ANYBIO . — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Wajahat Ali[edit]

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

Unreferenced and non-notable BLP. Quasar G ^{t - c} 15:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CJSH-FM[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. The next set of low power tourist information stations of no reliably sourceable notability. WP:NMEDIA explicitly deprecates this class of radio station as not inherently notable, except in the rare instance that it actually passes WP:GNG. We formerly had a practice of exempting Canadian TIS stations from getting deleted on that basis, because they had to possess CRTC licenses just like any other radio station and were thus sourceable to at least some of the same types of sources that we permit in other radio station articles -- but as of 2013, the CRTC revised its policies and TIS stations are now exempt from having to have licenses at all anymore. As a result, it is no longer verifiable whether any of these stations is still operational or not: reliable media sources don't cover them and the CRTC doesn't have to issue license renewals, so we have no way to determine whether any of these is still operating, if it went defunct then when or why, or anything else about it. And if we can't verify it anymore, then we can't keep it anymore. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; there's no presumption of notability for tourist information stations, licensed or not, and it seems unlikely that any of these stations will ever attain the coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline (much less be independently notable of the entities these stations exist to serve or promote), much less to verify whether they are still operating. (Even then, would there be enough to get any of these articles out of the permastub category all of these TIS station articles more-or-less fall under?). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Agree with nom/Bearcat.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C.k Morgan (DaFlyBoy)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable musician. News results [17] and [18] show only tabloid and blog sources. No third party independent souces demonstrating WP:DEPTH of coverage; fails W:GNG. No singles in national charts, no gold albums, no major awards, no non-trivial coverage: fails WP:MUSICBIO. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC) — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G4 and possibly G5 and salt. It's been deleted plenty of times under different titles as follow:

CK Morgan, C.K M.O.R.G.A.N (FlyBoy), C.K M.O.R.G.A.N (DaFlyBoy), CK Morgan- Singer, CK Morgan (Flyboy), C.k Morgan, CK- Morgan, C.K-Morgan, C.K Morgan (singer), C.k Morgan (flyboy), C.k .Morgan, C.K .Morgan, C.K . Morgan, C.k Morgan (Daflyboy), C.K. Morgan, CK MORGAN, Ck Morgan (Rnb Singer), CK Morgan (Singer), C.k Morgan (DaFlyBoy), Draft:C.K. Morgan, Draft:CK Morgan, Draft:CK Morgan (Singer), Draft:C.k Morgan. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 12:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Mind[edit]

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

I don't see any evidence that this band is notable; the sources in the article are either unreliable, primary, or don't discuss the band in detail. The band released some albums, but they don't seem to be on a major label (except Resist Records), and don't otherwise meet WP:BAND. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination in light of the additional sources cited by Shaidar cuebiyar. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 12:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG. It seems there fails to be enough coverage of this particular act, with the exception of their signing to Resist Records, and therefore I believe to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. V.Putnam (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has toured Australia and New Zealand, subject has issued two albums and one has charted on a national chart. It passes WP:NBAND.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update Shaidar cuebiyar, Actually I was looking at the 2014 ARIA albums chart on the official website www.ariacharts.com.au and was not aware of the archive. I don't doubt your judgment but would like to take WP:3O before I withdraw my nomination. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 04:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the additional references provided by Shaidar cuebiyar, the band satisfies WP:NBAND. Dan arndt (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid rationale for deletion provided. "this is a page I feel shouldn't be here. No reason given. You people can vote to decide." doesn't cut it. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recklessly (Hot Chelle Rae album)[edit]

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

My nomination summaries have received criticism lately. So here, this is a page I feel shouldn't be here. No reason given. You people can vote to decide. Kellymoat (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Israel at the World Baseball Classic#2017 tournament. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnecessary content fork, also looks like a copy & paste JMHamo (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a complete copy and paste from the main article, even with the reference numbers. I have turned this into a redirect instead, its useless in its current format. - Galatz ^Talk 18:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and speedy close - It's already been redirected. It's a plausible search term and there's related content in the main article. Keep the redirect and close this. It should have just been BOLD-ly redirected to begin with. If someone thinks it shouldn't be redirected, that discussion belongs at WP:RFD. Smartyllama (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:SouthernNights under criteria A7 and A11. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 21:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho-Contextual Analysis[edit]

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

Non-notable. A WP:BEFORE search indicates that, although prresented as a 'brand of psychotherapy', there is almost nothing in GBooks, GNews ([19]). Presumably a pet-theory of the individual mentioned. The purpose of mentioning him presumably being to advertise his clinic. Delete or redirect to psychotherapy- if the community thinks its actualy worth treating this as a potential future article, and not just a barely-escaped A11. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC) — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, psychotherapy doesn't have "brands," it has "approaches or schools of thought," so the language here is tellingly, clumsily revealing. It's important to note that the sole mentions of this phrase found via google are not connected in any way with this guy's "invention." Furthermore, the one link on the article, to the article creator's page at the clinic where he works, makes no mention of his invented "brand" of psychotherapy. I honestly would've tried to speedy this, as both unambiguous advertising and something he's made up. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed an A11 speedy tag on it. We'll see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: Agree with the A.11 in principle; but speedies should really be placed with no hesitation or not at all. I hesitated over it- and here we are :) — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick Anzuluni[edit]

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

Azuluni has never played on a team that is part of a league where merely playing would grant him notability. None of his other actions suggest notability either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - He had a feature done on him here by the Norrländska Socialdemokraten, which, in addition to some of the sources already in the article, might qualify him for general notability. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having played in the Basketball Bundesliga (even if it's only two games) is enough for notability, IMO. The league is known for expecting a high standard of professionalism from its teams. For example, a team there is required to have a yearly budget of one million €, but teams actually need more than that in order to be able to compete. In this (German) article, Phoenix Hagen's (Anzuluni's most recent team) budget is estimated to be around two million €. Eventually, the team went bankrupt (because of that high financial standards, apparently) soon after Anzuluni's departure, but that shouldn't distract us from the fact that this is a league at least as professional as some of those mentioned in WP:NBASKETBALL (especially the leagues in Australia and Israel). Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Andrews (Gaelic footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Paddy Andrews (Gaelic footballer)

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

The article has one source, which is not enough to pass GNG. I can see no indication that Gaelic footballer are presumed notable so we can ignore the GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if he meets WP:NGAELIC for footballers or not. He may. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Assuming it's this player, then he meets WP:NGAELIC as he has played in All-Ireland Senior Football Championship five times. Poor effort of showing that in the article, though. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a 3 time All Ireland Football Championship winning Gaelic footballer, and in accordance with WP:NGAELIC, participants in the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship are considered notable. Teester (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played Senior Inter County for Dublin and winner of 3 All Ireland medals, the highest possible honour for a Gaelic Footballer. Finnegas (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He does seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NGAELIC. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rahma Ali[edit]

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

Ali has not made enough appearances as an actress or enough of an impression as a singer to qualify as a notable actress or singer. The sourcing is too weak to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The last post, from User:Cbs527, carries conviction IMO. Bishonen | talk 22:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Afrika[edit]

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

No indication from article that she passes any of the notability guidelines for musicians. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. 14:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment A finding of notability reflects conditions external to a Wikipedia article (though information in the article, including references, can help by directing Wikipedians to those conditions). See WP:BEFORE, particularly part D, about looking outside the article before initiating a deletion discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Translation problem. No WP:RS in English listed. No way to determine reliability of the Serbo-Croation language articles cited as references. The info links at the top of the page, show nothing. Unfortunately, there is no Serbo-Croation Wikipedia. Tapered (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like, y'know, sh:Sandra Afrika? No such user (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep precisely because we have adequate foreign-language sources; a native speaker can check in more detail, or we can try Google translate, but the content and sourcing appear to meet GNG for musicians. Montanabw^(talk) 08:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If only Serbo-Croatian sources are used, how are they vetted for reliability? BTW, for whatever reason, the translation icon in Chrome doesn't appear for these articles. Tapered (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered that besides the missing icon in the search line, I could also use the translation webpage. NONE of the articles from the search tools are more than fan titillation or gossip. Same for the 'references' in the article. The most titillating discusses her silicone implants. Sorry, there are no reliable source hidden gems about SA. Tapered (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, yes, the subject is a turbo-folk singer, to quote sh:Sandra Afrika, She is considered to be one of most provocative contemporary singers, because at she beginning of her career she exposed her butt much more than her voice capabilities. Trashy singers tend to be covered in trashy sources, but Wikipedia does not cover only the subjects we like. No such user (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a well written opinion...which means nothing @ Wikipedia. Please read WP:N AND WP:RS to understand the criteria for inclusion. Tapered (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:QS "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source." CBS527^Talk 02:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. There's no requirement that sources be in English. She's mentioned as an example of a turbo-folk star in Hip Hop at Europe's Edge, and there seems to be no shortage of sources in Serbian (although they do seem to look like tabloids). Pburka (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is "mentioned" in one sentence in a 324 page book. Trivial mentions do nothing to establish notability per WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 03:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the GNG has been met. I've pointed out WP:NEXIST to the nominator before & I've been ignored. Oh well. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are two translations of articles about Sandra. The first is a highly ranked 'reference' from the "google news" tab. The second is an article reference. Proof this article belongs in 'the dustbin of history." Please direct readers to substantive dedicated articles. Please!!! Tapered (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bomb Sandra showed perfect backdrop 06. 03. 2017 to 22: 44h

Although Sandra always present for one of the hottest singer of the local music scene, Sandra has always emphasized that it is up to the perfect lines arrived thanks napronim training.- Do not hold a child and all the dishes, even sweets. When I get to the gym, everything wears out - she was once Sandra, a recently published photo from the gym, where its rounded buttocks in the foreground. In less than five hours, the photo has received nearly 20,000 likes and Sandra countless compliments

Repeat: Sandra new silicones give 1,200 euros ?!

Singer Sandra Prodanovic, alias Sandra, has silicones chest of a teenager, and although it has only 27 years, but the time has come for their overhaul. Pretty Falkirk it was allegedly already done and for new implants gave 1,200 euros. "Sandra was a few years ago installed silicones and intervention has been more than successful. However, a few months ago she decided to replace old implants quality. Consult your doctor and soon went under the knife, and after being with him and went to the first operation, was given a special discount, so the new silicone paid only 1,200 euros. After the operation she had to cancel all the stalls and at rest in a home environment to avoid complications. All this is complied with, and when she recovered, she continued to work at full capacity, "says a source close to the singer and continues: "New lush breasts promoted on the set of one New Year's TV program, when many of the singer commented that good and hard, and asked them to recommend with your surgeon. Since it is now all right, Sandra next five years will not have to change the implants, "ends the source and transmits Stars. Sandra has not confirmed this information, since it was not answering the phone, as well as her manager, with whom he had a relationship until recently, was also unavailable.

Delete. NOT TABLOID. "mentioned as an example of a turbo-folk star" mentioned. mentions and gossip do not make notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable subject. Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:Basic and WP:GNG. 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 Serbian are turning up nothing to establish notability. The sources in the subject's (Сандра Африка) Serbian Wikipedia article are no help either as some are the same as this article or are PR related.

Current source is article:

1. Article is about her breast implants. (hardly notable)
2. O Meni (which means "about me")- Subject's web site. Primary source - Per WP:Basic "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
3. Poznati.info -Trivial mention from a web site that says it's "a site you can read interesting facts about the lives of celebrities"
4. Detozin - Article isn't about her at all. It's about the packaging of products.

If someone can produce some sources that meet our requirements for notability I could be persuaded to reconsider my !vote but so far no one has and I have been unable to find any. CBS527^Talk 03:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was '. Deleted by GB fan per WP:G7 (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Harmer[edit]

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

Not Wanted Jake TT fan (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KillTeaser[edit]

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

Non-notable film with lack of independent secondary coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I PROD'd this article and the notice was removed with the addition of a facebook link. Reliable sources with in depth coverage are required. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's just nothing out there that would suggest that this film passes NFF or NFILM. It seems to exist in one stage or another, but existing does not make something notable (WP:ITEXISTS) and I'll be frank that it looks unlikely that this will gain the needed coverage at this point in time. I also have to express my concern for the notability of the band SouLandscape, given that it seems to be fairly obscure and a search brings up little to nothing for them either. There also looks to be an undisclosed COI in all of this, but that's more of an aside. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated that for deletion as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to delete it as well via, Prod, but couldn't make up my mind. No doubt know. scope_creep (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suruchi Adarkar[edit]

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

There is no evidence that even one, let alone the required multiple, of Adarkar's appearances have been in notable productions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is very close to a keep. The interview in "Movie World," is in depth. So, is "Movie World" a WP:RS in India? There are two short dedicated pieces in the reliable Times of India website, and prominent mentions in several others. This is very close to meeting WP:N requirements. Tapered (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haruka Abe[edit]

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

Abe lacks coverage at the level to pass GNG. She does not have enough significant roles in notable works to be considered a notable actress. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Delete Only one of the sources listed is WP:RS, and the search tools yield no dedicated articles from reliable sources. It doesn't looking promising, but an open mind is good User:Montanabw shifted my 'verdict,' but the lack of other reliable sources still inclines me to delete. WP:N. Tapered (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs work, but though sources are weak, she does have enough credits to meet NACTOR. Montanabw^(talk) 08:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was unsure about this one, but yesterday she was the subject of a detailed profile which is currently featured on the front page of the Japan Times website. That is certainly enough to satisfy GNG. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N requires multiple dedicated articles. I mentioned that article, but not by name. WP:TOOSOON I think. Tapered (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? This is a new article published after you made your vote and has not yet been used in the wiki article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Bregoli (personality)[edit]

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

Per WP:SINGLEEVENT. This individual is noted for her appearance on the "Dr.Phil" TV show. Subsequent events, such as a second appearance on "Dr. Phil", are not significant. Random anti-social behavior by this person following her TV appearance are WP:NOTNEWS. Her minor role in a music video fails WP:MUSICBIO. This article is a recreation of Danielle Bregoli, which was redirected to Dr. Phil (TV series)#Notable episodes, where Bregoli is discussed in detail. Finally, this is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Why are we documenting the trivial, non-notable behaviors of a child? Magnolia677 (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I would personally not consider her actions newsworthy, her immense presence in the social media world is undeniable, with upwards of 7 million followers, more than Mariah Carey, Usher, or Kendrick Lamar, and as of late there has been an onslaught of articles being released surrounding her actions. Although her appearance on Dr. Phil is what she is known best for, that does not nullify that she has appeared in multiple music videos for notable rappers (Kodak Black, Stitches) AND had a remix made of her catchphrase which made number 88 on the Billboard Hot 100. I would argue that for these reasons and more, she has garnered enough attention to warrant a Wikipedia page.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Pburka (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E – this individual is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K. P. S. Mahalwar[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:Prof Uncletomwood (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Notable person. He is the senior professor of Law and actively participant of legal education growth.16:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC) HariSinghw (talk)
Keep -- isn't "Head of a Chair professor, Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Chair on Professional ethics" a PROF#5 criterion: "5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)."? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holder of a named chair at a significant university. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Fight Club. Very little evidence of passing GNG, as pointed out by Delete voters, so I suggest a redirect to the film is in order. This does look like a BLP that SHOULD have a lot more coverage, but without significant third party coverage, policy says that it should not stand on its own. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Grayson Bell[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP, only marginally more substantial than "Ross Grayson Bell is a person who exists", about a film producer. He produced one of the most famous films of the past 20 years, so the notability claim is definitely there in theory -- but what it isn't is reliably sourced to media coverage about him: the sole reference here is a primary source press release announcing that he was giving a talk. According to his IMDb profile he hasn't produced a film since 2001, so needless to say he doesn't Google well; reliable sources might certainly exist in databases I don't have access to, but I can find nothing on my own that constitutes the kind of sourcing needed to salvage it. He does not inherit a "no valid sourcing required" freebie just because there's a famous film title involved, and we do not keep badly sourced articles just because better sourcing might exist somewhere; we keep badly sourced articles only if and when it can be definitively shown that the sourcing needed to repair them does exist. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but this as written simply isn't even close to good enough. Bearcat (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like lots of WP:RS to me. Please try clicking on the books and scholar, high beam. For example, in this book, he gets an entire chapter. The movie even has entire book(s) written about it [20]. He seems quite notable. @Bearcat:, @Johnpacklambert: please consider the sources I just mentioned. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In all of those search locations, I just see a lot of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that's fundamentally about the film rather than about him. That's not what we're looking for, however — to count toward WP:GNG, a source has to contain significantly more information about him than just mentioning his name a single time. Basically, all those sources do is confirm that he exists — but not a single one of them enables us to add any more substance to the article beyond nominally verifying that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many of the sources are as you say--just a listing of the key players with him on that line. However, some of the sources, such as those I mentioned, have much more substance. I agree with DGG that the film is of such significance that being the producer of it is sufficient to make him notable. I do think the amount of material in the article might be someone limited based on the sources I identified, but even if the article is short, the producer passes WP:GNG. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only source you offered above which is about him, in anything more than a "glancing acknowledgement of his existence" sort of way, is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person. That's a type of source that is subject to the same problems as self-published sourcing, because people can and do make inflated or inaccurate claims about themselves — so it can be used for supplementary confirmation of stray facts after he's already been sourced over GNG by better sources, but it cannot bring the GNG in and of itself as an article's only substantive "more than just a namecheck" source. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Producing even one film can be enough if its a famous film, as is the case here. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you can't source him over WP:GNG to more than just glancing namechecks of his existence, it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:NDIRECTOR and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 18:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passes GNG how and where? Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's apparently the subject of a chapter, here. But that really does seem to be it as far as significant coverage. No major awards. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Fight Club. There's no there, there! The "article" is an orphan and it consists of two short simple sentences and one empty section: as the nominator says, it's only marginally more substantial than "Ross Grayson Bell is a person who exists". A stub this thin is much better off as a redirect, if even that is needed. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Tremble[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS Zazzysa (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may be one of those cases where we have an accomplished individual who just falls short, at least for now. The CALQ award at the Rendez-vous du cinéma québécois is a fairly big deal, here. Of course she got quite a lot of coverage because of Dominic Gagnon's allegedly racist Of the North (a film/controversy that might merit an article) in her status as head of the Vidéographe collective (which could also merit an article). But in terms of her solo film and art work, she hasn't (yet) received the sort of significant exhibition or coverage that our guidelines require. Weak delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually even Vidéographe falls short: the GNews hits do all seem related to the controversy over the Gagnon film.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are plenty of scholarly hits for Vidéographe as it's one of the first video access centres in North America. For example there's an essay about Vidéographe in the book Video re/View: The (best) Source for Critical Writing on Canadian Artists' Video. freshacconci talk to me 20:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On Tremble's website there's a link for her cv but I wasn't able to download it. I was thinking there may be sources listed that don't necessarily show up on a google search. Unfortunately, Tremble is like so many people in the Canadian/Quebec art world, doing tons of things for organizations and other artists, but for her it's difficult to establish notability per Wikipedia standards. A few good sources about Tremble herself would suffice. freshacconci talk to me 18:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Freshacconci I was able to find the CV from the gallery website directly: [[21]]
Delete per nominator. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The article maybe Wikipedia worthy but certainly not at this time due to lack of coverage as mentioned by Shawn in Montreal or it could be userfied. Zazzysa (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that your nomination is your !vote. freshacconci talk to me 14:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not demonstrate notability as an artist. The ones I found were very minor or about her role as director of Videographe. Nothing found regarding her being included in permanent collections. Note that Google might try to route you to the similarly named artist Julie Tremblay. Delete 198.58.158.1 (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Already adequately sourced. Several other sources testify to her notability.--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Ipigott.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She's mentioned in a number of French Canadian magazines in newspapers in the past several years. --LauraHale (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to cross the threshold to me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She passes GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe Tremble passes notability requirements for a number of reasons. I want to first state that I am deeply sympathetic to the article subject and the article creator. As a Canadian and a member of the rather small Canadian art community, I fully understand the difficulty of establishing notability to current Wikipedia standards. Much of this falls under systemic bias, something that affects Tremble thrice, as a Canadian on an American website, as a Francophone in the English-language Wikipedia, and of course as a woman. There is also a systemic bias at work as a Québécoise within majority English Canada. I address systemic bias below. Please also note, as full disclosure, that although there may be a six degrees of separation at work here – I can only assume Tremble and I know some of the same people – I do not know Tremble personally, have never met her, and have never seen her artwork in person. Please excuse the length of this rationale.

1. I believe Tremble easily passes WP:ARTIST. Her work has been exhibited within Canada and internationally, and in media festivals internationally. One work, BMP 37093 appears to have had some impact, with a number of showings and reviews. Please note that being in permanent collections is not a requirement for WP:ARTIST but is rather one of several possible criteria. This is something that falls under systemic bias, as durable and larger-scaled works in museum collections favour older, white, male artists. The CALQ award at the Rendez-vous du cinéma québécois is significant. By itself, passing WP:ARTIST is not enough.

2. However, I believe Tremble passes WP:GNG based on French language reviews of her work, the Nathalie Bachand essay, and the catalogue essays for Galerie du Nouvel-Ontario, Art Gallery of York University and Université de Montréal. Gallery and museum initiated essays by themselves cannot be used to establish notability. However, in the context of the reviews this helps push the article past the WP:GNG threshold. This is the second instance of systemic bias at play. Within the world of Canadian and Québécois art, with a smaller pool of artists, critics and places of exhibition, it is necessary for such things as grants and tenure at universities to build up a profile of exhibitions at artist-run centres and regional museums, where the main source of written references would come from within the individual institutions. Per current policies this is a grey area for WP:RS, as the curator, the person who chose the artist for the exhibition, is writing about that exhibition, or a guest writer is invited by the institution to write something that is then published by that institution. This creates circular referencing that is problematic but mostly unavoidable. It is the reality of the Canadian art world and is necessary in order to establish notability in Canada. Therefore, I believe the reviews (which are completely independent of the artist, curator and galleries), combined with the essays pass WP:GNG. If it were only catalogue essays, I would not make this argument.

3. Finally, Tremble's association with the Dominic Gagnon incident provides the most RS coverage. By itself, this would fall under WP:BLP1E and possibly WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTINHERITED. However given the wide coverage, it is a significant sources of RS. In combination with the reviews, catalogue essays, awards and exhibition record, it resolves any WP:BLP1E issues and the sources can stand on their own, which again, in this context, are significant.

In summary: individually, these three points would probably not be enough. Point number two is enough for WP:GNG but it would be weak. The three together, satisfying WP:ARTIST, WP:GNG and overcoming possible WP:BLP1E, I believe allows this article to easily pass WP:GNG overall. freshacconci talk to me 18:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is sufficiently broad coverage of the subject by different sources, even if they do not go into great depth, to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Euryalus (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Smith (author) (born: June 2, 1972)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:RS as no sources were found on GNEWS or GBooks Zazzysa (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - previous version at Dan smith (author Born on June 2, 1972) which was, I believe, identical to this version was speedily deleted. This version also seems to have no claim to any notability and could be speedily deleted. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two of the three sources used in this article don't appear to have anything to do with this particular Dan Smith. The other source is the subject's own official site. So there are no independent sources cited here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coherent claim to notability. Sorry, but being the top real estate agent in Big Bear Lake does not make someone notable. One of the sources is to a different Dan Smith, who is maybe notable, although that is a horrible source so I don't know. Also note the article creator removed the deletion tag. This whole thing smells of promotionalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still trying to figure out why Dan Smith (author) (born 1972) or Dan Smith (born 1972) were not used. Actually Dan Smith (public speaker) would seem to be more accurate. Still no sign of notability, but maybe some of these need to be preemptively blocked.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 - and I have templated the article as such. Not even an assertion of notability here. John from Idegon (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Materials Corporation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was previously kept as WP:LISTED, but it is not listed on the main board of the NYSE but a subsidiary board only. What press sources there are, seem to be only about 1 nonfatal accident DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED as WP:LISTED is not automatic. There is no significant coverage of this company.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article currently has encyclopedic content and passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it does not pass GNG. The only possible secondary source merely regurgitates the audited report from the company. The rest are primary sources, business profiles from Reuters and Yahoo, and some don't even mention Continental.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable company going about its business. The content is not encyclopedically relevant and rather routine: "settled lawsuit"; "manufactures products". At $100M in revenue, the company is relatively small for a public one, so I don't see indicators of notability or significance here. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References I can find consist of company-owned websites and standard business directory listings. Nothing notable.Glendoremus (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Probably a great company but not notable enough for an article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Save Me (Ramona Nerra song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Hasn't charted, artist doesn't even have a Wikipedia page, not notable in any sort of way - Wikipedia:Notability (music). Obviously, if the song gets selected to represent Romania it will be notable, but wait until/if it does. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The artist has a Wikipedia page now. Although this song may not be notable, it is backed up by strong and reliable references and thus has much content. Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article is well-written, doesn't mean it can bypass notability rules. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only well-written, but also incorporates much content. Good articles such as this are nothing compared to this. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no credible claim of notability, and WP:OVERCITE applies; if you look at the citations, most of them turn out to be cruft, blog posts and the like. Furthermore, Ramona Nerra herself lacks notability, and the article on her should be nominated for deletion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get more opinions on this? I've spent a LOT of work on this, and 90% of the sources are strong. For example "Love Is a Camera" is a GA and it's not really notable, then why can it be kept but this not?? Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That song is notable because it charted. You should've read what makes a song notable before spending your time making this article, sorry. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjj1238: I apologize for intruding on this discussion. A song does not necessarily have to chart to be notable enough for its own page as commercial performance tracks only one aspect of notability. The main thing that I look for when gauging notability of an article or a list is whether or not the subject matter has significant coverage in third-party, reliable resources. If possible, could you explain why the sources do not support the song's notability? This question was posed by Cartoon network freak in the above comment, and I would also be interested in your answer as well. I am uncertain of the source's quality as a majority of them are in Romanian and cover topics, such as Eurovision, that I am not familiar with at all so I am unable to discern whether they are reliable enough or if the references to the song go beyond a passing mention. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Eurovision national final song. National final winning songs are only notable for competing in Eurovision (unless they have also charted or are by a very notable artist). Nerra placed rather low in the national final, her song has had very little coverage (even on Eurovision websites), and it hasn't charted. There's absolutely no claim to notability. The song is just being disguised behind a well-written article, it has absolutely no notability. I mainly edit Eurovision articles and it's basically a known fact in the community not to create articles for these songs until they win their national final. They hold no notability on their own. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjj1238: Thank you for your response and I apologize for my ignorance on this topic. I wanted to make sure that I had all of the information before casting a vote either way. With this information in mind, I will have to say delete. While I appreciate the time and energy put into this article, I have to agree with the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the singer lacks notability imo. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 19:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knockout Kings (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I do not see much coverage outside of some local coverage and coverage on smaller, less notable websites. I did a Google search and could not find any other sources. Also, some of the sources here are not reliable as they lead to a music store, recording website, awards list, etc. Andise1 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep Behind the promo-y langauge, they are a decade + old and have 3 good sources. Perhaps the song list should be deleted because the songs have no links per NI?L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources is simply not enough for an article on Wikipedia unless those three sources can cite every bit of information included in the article. What are the three sources you deem "good", because I am not seeing them. Andise1 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking 1, 3, and 11 were superior to the other refs listed.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references are either not WP:V or not WP:RS. A band that has only local coverage and doesn't qualify under WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From the information supplied this page does not qualify under WP:GNG or WP:BAND are therefore should be removed. V.Putnam (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Dunford[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I can't see how this meets WP:GNG. Whilst there are some foreign language source, and I don't speak those languages, they appear to be routine coverages rather than in-depth reporting. Just wondering why we haven't heard from the article's creator, CeeGee, as yet? They are a senior editor, and have been active since the AfD was posted. Schwede 66 05:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet NHOCKEY and all the coverage I have found (including the sources in the article) are insignificant or blogs. Rlendog (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability requirements for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question if he signed for the Istanbul-based league-champion team Zeytinburnu Belediyespor in 2016 why is he not notable? Turkish Ice Hockey Super League is the highest level yes @CeeGee:? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the linked list of leagues at WP:NHOCKEY does not include the Turkish Ice Hockey Super League as fulfilling criteria #1.18abruce (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mukti Subedi(ACTOR)[edit]

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

False references used; none mention this person. Non-notable biography. Binksternet (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G5(non-admin closure)

Jared Scott[edit]

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

0 indication of meeting any biography notability guideline. Please note that articles by the same editor have been speedy deleted once under this title and twice under Jared Scott Salas. John from Idegon (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No real sign of notability, search finds nothing better, salt due to the repeated reproduction over multiple titles (salt them too). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prbably qualifies as a G5 speedy, blocked after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HelloImNotAdele/Archive, editing as User:CharlieProduction01. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Nelson (footballer)[edit]

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

He has never played at a fully professional. WP:FOOTYN. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that he has played in fully professional games at a glance. South Nashua (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Elgin City and Brechin City are semi-professional clubs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only ever played in Scottish Divisions 2/3 (see Soccerbase EL on article), so never played in a WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Also no evidence of significant coverage, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. @South Nashua: you might want to re-glance... Giant Snowman 09:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Keep vote above is incorrect, player has nefever been attached to a club in a fully professional league. Fenix down (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ - meets WP:GNG with media coverage such as this and this - as I pointed out when I removed the Prod. Nfitz (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That'll be why it went to AfD, no one is notable for one goal they scored, WP:BLP1E would be relevant even if this was a notable goal. These sources are just routine match reporting. Furthemore, they're both about the same thing, they even use exactly the same photo to illustrate each brief article. I'm not sure how you can confuse two articles about the same, single goal with GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both go well beyond routine match reporting. But yes, you are right, if it's the same goal, then BL1PE would apply. I thought I'd seen a third article when I was looking yesterday, but couldn't squeeze anything more on the Prod line - and have more limited access now. I'll have to research again later. Nfitz (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digging deeper - there isn't much more. So I've struck my keep - for now at least. Nfitz (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He scored one goal in a game between a junior club (Bonnyrigg Rose Athletic) and a semi-professional club (Dumbarton). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's beside the point. Nfitz (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the coverage rises above being routine and he never played in a fully professional league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Leaning keep. Sandstein 09:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient tree[edit]

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

None listed are WP:PRIMARYTOPICs - fails WP:DABRELATED TheMagikCow (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations:

[1] Term 'ancient tree' = 'very old trees'^[1]
[2] term 'ancient tree' = fossil trees (e.g. in fossil fuel formation)

Term has multiple meanings. Adding a disambiguation page will guide people to link the right target?, It also shows that the 'correct' target from a given context is ambiguous? I've never personally heard of the term 'veteran tree', but discovered it whilst going through dead-end pages here. I've heard of ancient forests in reference to fossil-fuels, and was generally aware some living trees are 'very old'. 21:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC) r.e. WP:DABRELATED , all these articles should mention 'ancient tree' (paleobotany could say 'ancient plants (including trees..)'; fossil forrest certainly should. 'veteran tree' should say 'ancient tree' somewhere . etc

ancient woodland links to [http://www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk/ancienttrees/managing/guides

|Ancient Tree Guides by the Woodland Trust] (the term ancient tree is visible).

veteran tree also contains the phrase Ancient Tree Hunt - it suggests to me 'veteran tree' is synonymous with 'ancient treee'.
coal#Formation says "At various times in the geologic past, the Earth had dense forests in low-lying wetland areas" - this is referring to "ancient trees" in the fossil sense.
carboniferous Carboniferous rainforest collapse etc talks about the geological time period from which trees were fossilised.

As such I do not think it's wise to make ancient tree a link simply to veteran tree.

Whilst the material in wikipedia relating to fossils doesn't say 'ancient tree' I can find plenty of web citations where the term is used that way (confirming my memory of it). MfortyoneA (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC) (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Ancient Tree Hunt".

Yes, but ancient tree in terms of fossilisation is not a common term. I can't find a use of ancient tree in that specific context. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really get the nominator's rationale: the lack of a primary topic is precisely what justifies the existence of a dab page, while WP:DABRELATED isn't really relevant when the term in question is a vague synonym of the target. – Uanfala (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel that these are plausible search terms for the items listed - Wikipedia is not a thesaurus. Also fails WP:DABRELATED. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok since the AfD debate what I did was went to hunt down more citations to address the concern you raise; on IRC i was also alerted to some 'DAB solver tool' which can generate dabs from the naming convention; so I've created individual redirects (ancient tree (fossil) etc), with citations in the talk page. It's possible listing these in the disambiguation page will look cleaner. They also made it easier to link to the right one in the cases where I found ancient tree written in existing wikipedia text. My concern was keeping the range of meanings open; 'wikipedia is not a thesaurus', but these dabs/redirects help (IMO) searching, and lay scaffolding for future content improvement. I like finding ways to encode connections in the wikipedia dataset .. the beauty of it is finding (or pointing out) connections between seemingly unrelated areas. "why would anyone care about ancient trees? ah, coal formation!" etc. MfortyoneA (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. WP:USEFUL to readers, certainly no gain to them from deletion. Ambiguous term. Boleyn (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful dab page. -- 120.17.236.252 (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Boleyn and IP 120.17.236.252. Dabs are kept for allowing non-experts to figure out what they need to know when researching. Disambiguation pages are one of Wikipedia's greatest inventions. In this case, there are several closely allied ideas that need sorting out. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this makes excellent sense as a dab page, given there are several equally likely redirect targets. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Disambiguation pages are used to help the user identify the intended page when there are multiple, similar articles. Take a look at WP:DAB. Also, see a few examples like Joker, or John Smith. This page is really re-creating the "Related Articles" feature that is included as part of many articles--it doesn't belong here.Glendoremus (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the phrase is not uncommon and does in fact cover a number of distinct topics, justifying the disambiguation page. --pmj (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Disambiguation pages are meant to be for ambiguous terms. WP:DAB says: Disambiguation ... is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous. There is nothing ambiguous about "ancient tree"—it always means "very old tree". It cannot mean anything else, unless it's the name of something (a book, a restaurant, etc.); I find none of those.

"Ancient tree" is a commonly used adjectival phrase. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's why we don't have pages for long highway, deep cave, celebrated book, elaborate design, etc. WP:DAB also says: A disambiguation page is not a search index. Delete this page and let the search engine do its work. — Gorthian (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok; out of interest, if DABs aren't intended for this, is there a guideline-friendly way to encode a search index in the wikipedia database; (I did find citations elsewhere matching my intuition that 'ancient trees' can refer to the fossil context - the reason I originally thought it warranted DAB was wikipedia actually surprised me with the term 'veteran tree'. My 'word association' is "fossil fuels<->ancient sunlight,ancient trees,.."). e.g would it be appropriate to make a wiktionary entry, which points back at those topics? MfortyoneA (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MfortyoneA, I'm not sure what you mean by "encode a search index in the wikipedia database". All you need to do is type "ancient tree" (with the quotation marks) in the Wikipedia search box, and you will find the occurrences of that phrase throughout the project or in whatever namespace you indicate.— Gorthian (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what I mean is - looking for material on 'ancient trees', I'm personally after Fossils. My word association is ancient-fossils<->ancient plants <-> ancient-sunlight <-> solar energy <-> fossil fuels <-> fossil energy .'ancient=extinct, not living' (hence my surprise in seeing the term used for living trees that are just 'very old' - furthermore wikipedia chooses the title veteran for these, not ancient) Whilst not everyone has the same view, other citations confirm I didn't make that connection spuriously; other people do have it (and very few people in this world are truly unique.. the associations I have will have come from exposure to certain sources in a certain order). There are so many instances where a simple text search is not sufficient; This is just one case. "load bearing" was another (again, there's a chain of word association,conceptual association). It's the same difficulty I'm running into elsewhere, but perhaps between the mechanisms in wikipedia & it's sister projects, there might be a better way to deal with it. It should be possible to encode these connections in such a way that the precision and versatility of wikipedia navigation is improved. The concept certainly doesn't warrant an article - it really is just a chain of associations around a phrase. It might be 'see alsos' on a glossary entry.. I dont know what the best way is MfortyoneA (talk)

Delete. None of the blue links on the dab page mention the term "ancient tree" except for Woodland Trust which talks about a Ancient Tree Hunt and Forum. The page as it stands is WP:OR and misleading. The purpose of a dab page is to guide readers to the article they are seeking, not to substitute for the search engine when searching for a little-used phrase. There is no article on WP about "ancient trees", much less several that need disambiguation. At the very least, make it a redirect to Woodland Trust#Ancient Tree Hunt, the closest thing we got. Station1 (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of all the terms listed on that page, only veteran tree is a plausible destination. For example, I find it highly implausible for some search for "ancient tree" when he or she means "paleobotany". He or she would search "study of trees" instead. —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, but consider my notes in the talk:ancient tree. My own intuition was "ancient trees <-> fossil fuels" ; I made the dab because wikipedia surprised me with contexts I wasn't expecting. I've found and given citations that use the term in this context, e.g. see Ancient Tree Fossil Beds and Fossil of Ancient Tree. Ancient Giant Trees Found Petrified In Thailand The point is, different people come encounter terms in different ways. Language (and search terms) are highly ambiguous. MfortyoneA (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I don't particularly care whether this is deleted or not, but it is not a valid disambiguation page. If it is kept it should be marked as a stub or as something else such as a broad concept article. older ≠ wiser 12:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the delete !voters above states that "ancient tree" could only refer to a veteran tree, while another one claims it can plausibly be associated only with the Ancient tree hunt. This does show the term is ambiguous and that's what disambiguation pages are for after all. As for the fossils, there definitely ought to be some relevant link on the dab page, either in an entry of itself, or – if that is more MOS-compliant – in a "see also" section. – Uanfala (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What bugs me here is people are denying the connection to fossils (which is how the word association works in my head). This connection is citable, my mind didn't generate it spuriously or uniquely; and it seems to me wikipedia should be able to show you connections you weren't aware of.. thats the magic of the exploratory hyperlinked structure, compared to linear books and simple text search. Now I can see this goes against the letter of the law on wikipedia DAB guidelines.. but is there another way to encode these connections formally within wikipedia's structure?MfortyoneA (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't go against the letter of the law, and links like this on dab pages are explicitly permitted by MOS:DABSEEALSO points 1 and 5. – Uanfala (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as there are multiple books written about it. Valid sources include:

Ancient Trees: Trees that live for a thousand years
Ancient Trees of the National Trust
World Tree Story: History and Legend of the World's Ancient Trees
What are ancient trees?

Development and improvement of the page is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I lost a bet to FleetCommand. He had wagered that before the end of this month I 'see a [person] who says "Notability" in a FFD, TFD, MFD or DabFD.' I took the wager because I put it on the account of his generally ill faith in any and all Wikipedians. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "notable" has expanded its meaning and is now synonymous with "worth keeping"? – Uanfala (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of ancient trees is notable. This means that there are sources which cover it in detail by that title. This means that readers should reasonably expect to find something here about it. That means that the title should be a blue link. This means that there are sensible alternatives to deletion. This means that we should keep the page for further development by means of ordinary editing rather than deleting it. Deleting the page would give us a red link, destroy the edit history and remove the various ideas which the page currently suggests for this title. That would be a disruptive outcome and so I oppose it. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uanalfa and Andrew D. Evidenlty this is a plausible search term on which we have relevant pages. There could be tweaks formatting wise, which would be strongly preferable to deletion.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unitel Pictures[edit]

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

Lacks sufficient independent coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Available news sourcing consists of mentions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent company GMA Network. I'm also fine with Delete --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not owned by GMA; a redirect would suggest it is owned by the network, which isn't the case. Otherwise, a non-notable telenovela producer out of many. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha Music[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NMUSIC. No indication of discussion in detail by multiple sources, no reviews, no charting. No indication of meeting WP:NAUTHOR or any other biographic guidelines. John from Idegon (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and no new sources found. Scr★pIron^IV 20:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anuradha T.K.[edit]

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

The subject is not the chief of the organization, but one of the senior scientists. In the case, there are many other scientists as well. Also the cited sources are not specific to the subject, they are about the community and the organization as a whole, and just the subject is mentioned. Fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source is a slender mention in the Deccan Herald. More is needed for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: I have added some more content from reliable sources. She is the senior most female scientist at ISRO and project director for several notable ISRO missions. There's also a (slightly longer) article on Swedish Wikipedia, which could be translated to add more content to the English article. 43.224.156.141 (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Being the "senior most scientist" (male or female) at any organization is not a notable achievement in itself. However, she headed the launch of GSAT-12 -- a satellite which has received fair coverage by the Indian media. More reliable sources are required to properly establish notability though. — Stringy Acid (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes GNG with news coverage over time starting back in 2011 with the launch of her first satellite program. I added some other sources to the article as well. She's covered in the BBC, Deccan Herald, the Biharprabha News, DNA, The Economic Times, India Today and Sify. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Inlinetext (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Beck[edit]

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

Article does not provide with any reference to notability - either towards the subject (author) or the works (novels/books). TopCipher (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG after checking notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've expanded the article and included references from two universities. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Rosie.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (provisional). I cannot see where notability resides. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep It seems impossible to fathom that Smith College would include her papers in their collections if they did not deem them to be valuable. Thanks for adding the referencing to Smith and the University of Virginia, Rosiestep. We don't determine notability, sources do. If one of the leading women's colleges in the nation believes that her papers are significant, for their insight, why would we question that? SusunW (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to Rosiestep for expanding the article and adding references. In its current form, the article shows that this person is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I support SusanW's logic re: the inclusion of her papers in an important archive. Theredproject (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SusunW. Pburka (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page has been expanded with enough sourcing to meet WP:BIO. Yoninah (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DavidParody[edit]

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

No evidence found that this person passes WP:GNG. PROD declined by article creator. Passing mentions or mentions that focus solely on their Youtube channel, rather than the person themselves, were all that could be found during a WP:BEFORE search for sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information is mostly from his videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasparc (talk • contribs) 02:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's genuinely the case then there's nothing to support a Wikipedia article, which requires secondary sources - as i pointed out to you on your talk page. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the General notability guideline. I have found no significant coverage of this person in any reliable, independent sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kudos on the high follower count, but until he's written about in reliable secondary sources he's not notable. Pburka (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. YouTubers do not get an automatic notability freebie because click count in and of itself — the content of our article has to be verifiable to reliable source coverage about the YouTuber, and the number of subscribers they do or don't have does not confer an exemption from that requirement. Bearcat (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youTubers.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Salsman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted as non-notable in a previous AFD six months ago. The new article is not a recreation of the previous one, but it still doesn't support notability. The cited sources are bio blurbs from organizations that he has worked with, not independent sources that indicate notability. RL0919 (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Discussion of the author's contributions at WP:ANI#User:Envale. Cabayi (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up: Author has been indef blocked following a second ANI discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Pburka (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Cabayi (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of being a significant economist. For instance, not listed as one of the top economists for any region in RePEc [22], and Google scholar h-index [23] is only 4. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ACADEMIC.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A World Away[edit]

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

Article devoted to unreleased film that includes no sourcing (outside of IMDb), so notability of film not established under WP:NFP. Should have been created in Draftspace and moved to Mainspace when it actually got some coverage after it's released. Delete in the meantime. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article created by a now indef'ed socker. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's just nothing out there at this point in time that would really show that this passes NFF or NFILM. The coverage that does mention the film only really does so in passing in relation to one of its actresses landing a role for something else. If this film ever gets the necessary coverage it can be recreated, but not before then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruurd Woltring[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:BIO. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Very few listeners on Sound Cloud, Napster, non on Spotify. Very early days. As if by magic, first album is coming out this month, and an article appears. scope_creep (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this page's Dutch counterpart was deleted twice before, first via AfD, then via the Dutch equivalent of WP:G7. The page's current incarnation is at AfD again and it still does not look like it will survive. The main argument in both discussions is self-WP:PROMO, with a touch of non-notability. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solly Afrika Mapaila[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Merely an apparatchik of the South Africa Communist Party and not been elected hence he is not notable. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mapaila is effectively the day-to-day leader of the South African Communist Party, one of the three components of the Tripartite Alliance that has ruled South Africa for many years. The two SACP leaders higher ranking than Mapaila hold senior government positions. There is nothing in our notability guidelines that says an unelected party official cannot be notable. A Google News search shows extensive coverage of Manila in reliable sources, indicating that he is a prominent critic of Jacob Zuma. He is notable and the article should be improved and expanded instead of being deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not personally elected he is a major leader of a party within the democratically-elected government of South Africa. Significant coverage demonstrated. Article title should be renamed to remove his middle name AusLondonder (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the moment, there is not enough references to satisfy the BLP Process. There is only one valid reference on this article. Unless more are found it will either be going back into the BLP-Prod or Afd process, after this. If somebody can add real verifiable references, then it will be ideal. scope_creep (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP prod only applies when articles "contain no sources in any form." That point is in bold in the lead of the guideline page to make that more clear to you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have expanded the article, adding four references to reliable sources that were easy to find. Instead of trying to delete articles about clearly notable topics, we should be improving and referencing such articles. Scope creep, will you please consider withdrawing your nomination? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Sufficient references added to verify notability. Cullen³²⁸ It is not my business to add references to articles, particularly when I'm reviewing them. If everybody did that, the backlog would never be addressed. They should have be put in by the originating editor, save everybody a lot of trouble, but they didn't care enough about it. The BLP is pretty clear what can stay and what can't. I do have my own stuff to work on. scope_creep (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply We are all here to improve the encyclopedia, not to try to delete articles about notable topics, Scope creep. Please do not nominate articles about notable topics for deletion. I recommend that you read WP:BEFORE and follow its wise advice. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, absolutely, we are all wanting a better encyclopedia, but the BLP notability guidelines are crystal clear now. If you can't verify it, it gets deleted, whether it is notable or not. It has to be verifiable. There is a backlog of 15000 articles waiting to be reviewed, and another 1000 being added every week, so it doesn't leave a lot of time to look at them. You can see from my contributions that I add a whole lot of references to new articles, if I can do it, quickly and accurately. But sometimes it's not the case.

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