< 7 March	9 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) 05:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Kwok[edit]

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

Minor contributions - does not meet WP:NACTOR Peter Rehse (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant roles, the sources come no where close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NACTOR. DrStrauss talk 18:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – does not meet notability criteria. Citobun (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NACTOR: "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." 7k fans on Facebook, 5k fans on Weibo, 24k followers on Instagram. Probably "large" enough, if barely. Timmyshin (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted A11 as clearly a hoax - will tidy up the related categories etc. shortly. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danish English[edit]

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

The sources do not establish the existence of "Danish English". Reference 1 contrasts Danish, English and Italian; ref 2 is about translating between Danish and English; ref 3 tells us that Danes are good at learning English. John of Reading (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no such thing as Danish English. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - looks like a hoax as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Not here to build an encyclopaedia. Nfitz (talk) 23:14, 8 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 deleted per G7 RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Fisher (Event host presenter)[edit]

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

Apparently the warm up man for many television events. None of the sources here appear to actually mention him, and a search for others confirms he exists and that's about it. Can't think of any way of salvaging this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete--Was deprodded.Absolute dearth of WP:RS covering him non-trivially.Winged Blades^Godric 03:08, 9 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Youth Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews for English or Malay name, sources provided merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a public attraction. I'll grant that the article doesn't make it sound very exciting to visit, but museums are basically notable. This appears to be a publicly funded one, with opening hours of at least five days per week (per the Wikipedia article, not that such should be stated in the article) as opposed to a private museum in a person's house that is not regularly open. --do ncr am 05:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

none of these reasons address how a notability guideline is met nor the WP:SIGCOV test. this appears a knee-jerk keep !vote without a proper demonstration of sources. opening at least 5 days a week is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

museums are basically notable please let me know the notability guideline which states that. LibStar (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is the usual outcome, from my experience with AFDs, that museums are kept. I comment further below. --do ncr am 19:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What the heck is the relevance of asserting a place is not in current Google News coverage, in an AFD about a museum? So what? I would think/hope most museums would not be breaking news with scandals or whatever. That is no basis for an AFD nomination; it rather suggests that wp:BEFORE was not performed. --do ncr am 20:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

museums are not inherently notable. And that can't be used as a basis for arguing keep . LibStar (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so now you're saying a lack of coverage is somehow ok for musuems? Ridiculous. Notable museums all get significant coverage even in gnews. You need to stop with your weak arguments in AfDs. LibStar (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Museums are not inherently notable. This one has limited sources confirming nothing more than it exists. Ajf773 (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean the current article's sources don't do much more than confirm it exists, not that sources about the museum and the historic building and the gallery don't exist in Dutch and other languages, which we have not found and used in developing the article yet. --do ncr am 19:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Several notes:

The building is a historic building, a Dutch government building that has, like many others in Malacca, been repurposed to a museum. It is one of 10 museums within walking distance that seem to have been created as part of a government effort to foster Malay "cultural nationalism". See Building Cultural Nationalism in Malaysia by Timothy P. Daniels. The Google books view lets me see its page 108 which describes the art gallery upstairs in detail, but not its continuation on page 109 which I think is describing the youth museum. All 10 of those museums might be covered in navigation template ((Museums of Malaysia)) currently. There's not a lot on each of the separate articles, but it is okay by me that they exist as separate articles. An alternative would be for an editor seriously interested in the topic(s) to create a comprehensive list-article of museums in Malacca or in Malaysia as a whole and redirect some of the separate museum articles to sections in the list-article (but then of course the longer separate articles may still be valid, so would be kept and linked). I doubt that anyone involved in this AFD so far is actually interested in taking on such serious editing.
I am not finding what the building was named in Dutch or English or any other language though. Searches on just "Malaysia Youth Museum" don't yield hits on the historic purposes of the building, but I believe that it is historic and sources covering it do exist, although perhaps not so much on-line and not so much in English. It is very very common for museums to be located in historic buildings.

There is a 1931 date of significance for the building (which if it is a construction date is not terribly old), from the page 61 coverage about the museum in academic thesis / tourism study in PDF file downloadable from here. The building was part of the "Dutch Administrative Complex". However I don't trust that this building is 1931-built. Other "Dutch Administrative Complex" buildings date back to 1641.
Their source is "PERZIM", which I think is the administration running the museums, and there is page after page about the various museums, in this research study about tourist views. Again I am getting some impression that the collection of museums is notable, but still I think it is easier to have separate articles about the museums instead of, or in addition to, a new article about the collection of them. --do ncr am 20:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous hits on "Malaysia Youth Museum" in tourism-related articles, including many mentions of it being nearby to other museums. Frankly it sounds like a dud in terms of marketing, at least I don't really want to visit it the next time I am in Malacca, but still it is a part of systematic government effort to create tourist attractions, build "cultural identity", spew out propaganda or what have you. It is significant that the government is creating and supporting these. And it is covered as an attraction in TripAdvisor and other international travel guides (albeit with faint praise "Quite detailed but could be a bore for some"). Museums are covered in travel guides, that happens, and that does document existence. I don't see why Wikipedia should delete its coverage of them.
Also, note that the building has the Youth Museum on the first floor and an art gallery on the second, which has a separate Wikipedia article at Malacca Art Gallery. I think it would be fine for editor(s) to combine the two articles into Malaysia Youth Museum and Art Gallery or similar title.

I voted "Keep" above and I think it is both simplest and best to do so. --do ncr am 19:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you seriously think tripadvisor is a reliable source? Tripadvisor lists every hotel and minor tourist attraction under the sun. Has this been covered in major Malaysian newspapers? Rather thsn your WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm adding some references from ProQuest. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smmurphy, both the links you now have added go to a login page for Lancaster University, and apparently you have to be staff or a student at the university to use it. I'm sure you found stuff, but the way you've linked to it doesn't work, at least for me. If there's something that goes to notability behind those unhelpful links, I might change my mind, but it seems unlikely on the face of it. Mentions in "tourism-related articles, including many mentions of it being nearby to other museums" don't exactly show notability. The museum exists, and they would like for it to attract tourists, and that seems to be it. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Thanks for the note, the links had an "accountid" that I didn't notice. I've removed the accountid bit and tagged the refs as subscription needed. It would be really great if WP:TWL had ProQuest, but as is one needs access from somewhere else to use it. ProQuest is, in general, a lot better than google news or newspapers.com for finding news articles from between, say, 1960 and 2005, especially print and non-US/Europe sources. One of the links is to a book which is basically a visitors guide and is published by (I think) a state-run media company. The other is a newspaper article which is also a visitors guide and is in the major English language newspaper of the country (again, I think). Neither are terribly in depth, and the first isn't terribly independent. But to me, both are still basically third party (and at least establish Verifiability). My standard here is that, while I don't find great evidence of GNG, I find weak evidence of it in spite of having next to no access to Malaysian sources and no skill in the Malaysian language, so I feel pretty sure that GNG would be possible with those resources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! I meant to copy your sig into my ping and accidentally pasted rather than copied. I am so sorry. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I always use that copy method too, I thought that was probably it. Don't worry! Bishonen | talk 01:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the sources mentioned above has a multipage discussion of this museum [1]; other English-language references are apparent in a GBooks search. Enough here to validate this as a notable museum. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a public museum. Here's some discussion in Building Cultural Nationalism in Malaysia: Identity, Representation, and ... By Timothy P. Daniels. This suggests a notable museum to me. Additional sources are likely to exist in Malay. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - request relist - It is true that the sources in the AFD currently are not useful (many of them are very brief coverage including the book source). To be blunt here, (and as someone in a neighbouring country) I seriously doubt there is enough significant coverage about the museum. From my personal experience, this isn't exactly a notable museum either (if I compare it to others in the region). That said, I would be willing to look for more sources which are not available online. Could we please relist this for a week? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - recommend a no-consensus close OK, I have to apologise for wasting time here. Unfortunately due to certain real life constraints, I wasn't able to make a trip to the library. However, the content is clearly valuable. If there is not enough for a standalone article, I would definitely recommend a merge. Can we please close this as no consensus for the time being? Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:31, 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) 05:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Painchaud[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not winning any notable awards or playing in a high enough league for very long. Yosemiter (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to pass GNG and not enough achievement to pass the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No particular achievements and only scant coverage in secondary sources. Imalawyer (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - falls short of NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NHOCKEY. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:22, 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) 05:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Fisher[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet NHOCKEY and not finding significant coevrage. Rlendog (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:47, 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 merge to Leawood, Kansas#Law enforcement. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 17:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leawood Police Department[edit]

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

I don't find evidence of notability, WP:GNG for this local police department based on coverage outside its area. Largoplazo (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge (WP:ATD-M) to Leawood, Kansas § Law enforcement, which only has a passing mention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is clearly the correct answer here. No unique notability for this particular police department.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article Leawood, Kansas. This police department doesn't have notability independent of its jurisdiction. Imalawyer (talk) 21:53, 9 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) 05:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FrndiNeed[edit]

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

Part of a CU-confirmed paid advertising campaign in which several accounts were involved and singlehandedly used to cover each other's articles, something that violates our main policies WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Deletion policy and WP:NOT, because they all clearly maintain any and all advertising is removed, especially when used to misuse Wikipedia for webhosting, because they're policies we've held since day 1; all sources here are clear paid press, including with either clear labels or thinly hidden ones, especially because the mirrored copypaste information all confirms it, and also unconvincing in WP:CORPDEPTH (it states even published or republished information can be unacceptable if solely used for company promotion); next, it's unsurprising every search here and here found clear signs of such self-published or republished promotion, because they all show the given authorship by the company itself. It's not only one violation to intentionally hide COI payment, but it's a worse one to use multiple accounts to enlarge and hide it, which is never a negotiable matter here. As our policies note such as WP:Sockpuppetry, we will not tolerate both covert paid contributing and then attempts to bypass it using multiple accounts. WP:GNG itself says we will not accept anything still by or for the company, or where it has similar effects. When no one is actually willing to significantly improve this, beyond cosmetic rewording or styling, it shows it cannot be improved to our set policies. Every single source here, particularly 1 and 3-8 (with 2 only being a mere business column notice) is a clearly labeled or thinly hidden paid press, advertised columns, business interviews where the company spoke to clients, etc. which is exactly what my searches all found with the mirrored consistency of shared business quarterly schedules (not a coincidence at all), including with such information as costs, pricing availability, etc. which violates WP:What Wikipedia is not. Our Wikipedia banner has also stated Wikipedia will not accept advertising as that has never been a foreseeable option. SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every "app" does not merit an article. Way too soon to see if this one has an effect deep enough to merit notability. The article admits the creator is a PR person, and there is no evidence there is anyone else at the startup. W Nowicki (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Non-notable app. Sources are primarily press releases or derived from them. Article is purely promotional and violate WP:PROMOTION and such articles are never acceptable. CBS527^Talk 23:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hans-Martin Leidreiter[edit]

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

A tribute like-article cited to a self-published book and primary sources. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & sig RS coverage not found link, one passing mention.

No de.Wiki article. Much of the content is about the subject's superior, Gustav Knittel. The subject is not a recipient of the Knight's Cross, so there's no suitable redirect target. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per WP:SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We have rather fuller details of his military career than in many articles on award-recipients, but there is nothing in the article to show he was more notable than any other junior officer. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough proof of notability. Alternatively, I guess this article could be merged with Gustav Knittel.2602:30A:2ED1:2EE0:C75:A3A0:1702:11EA (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You people are incredible, especially "coffman". It took me 20 years to research the full extend of the career AND crimes of Gustav Knittel and the men under his command but coffman butchered the Knittel article - deleting relevant info and insisting on adding a crime Knittel did not take part in - then deleted the article about German Cross in Gold winner Wawrzinek and now insisting on deleting the - first equally butchered - article about German Cross in Gold winner Leidreiter for being "tribute like". Sure, by all means go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruimteaapje (talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research, which this article largely is. Same applies to the Kittel article; it relies heavily on primary documents and the same self-published book. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a junior officer doing his job. The German Cross was below the level of the Knight's Cross and we don't consider even that inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; being a part of the LSSAH and officer under Meyer, not enough for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:53, 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 Redirect to Journalism ethics and standards per consensus and page creator's agreement. Concerns on title capitalization are minor and do not justify deletion; the lowercase version also exists, will be redirected as well. — JFG ^talk 18:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Ethical Journalism[edit]

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

We already have an article on Journalism ethics and standards. This article's stated purpose is to cover "the current practical application of ethical-journalism", a violation of WP:RECENTISM. (Notable contemporary controversies about journalistic practice, such as GamerGate, should be treated individually). The article itself consists entirely of improper synthesis of primary sources discussing the current U.S. President's conflict with the American press, leading to a WP:COATRACK and essay-like article. I can't find evidence that the term is used to mean anything distinct from what is covered at journalism ethics and standards, or that anything in this article is worth merging elsewhere. I recommend a redirect. FourViolas (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is already such an article regarding the ethical standards of journalism, and yes, the new article, Ethical Journalism does concern itself primarily with the supposedly "recent" claim made by several notable figures and organizations that responsible (ethical) journalism in America is essentially now dead, (please note the Washington Times claim to that effect as cited in the article.) This claim however, is not a new claim, but has been clamored about over alt-right news sites for at least 7 years that I know of, but only now has it finally arisen to the status of being fully and publicly endorsed by the POTUS himself. Thus, this article is not really covering a truly current or merely recent event, but it is covering a certain sort of a "conspiracy theory" that has been in the wings for at least 7 years, and probably much longer.

Regarding your claim that the article is already covered by the article on journalistic ethical standards, or that it should only properly be covered there, I have actually been in contact with the creator of that article, who has most certainly already read my request here concerning this article (read it, based on his contributions log), and I am awaiting his recommendations regarding this question.

It is my humble opinion that Wikipedia harms nobody, and answers the questions of many, by being willing ot fearlessly include an article that addresses and focuses specifically on this one very major question that recent events have laid in front of us. That is the question, Is Ethical Journalism still alive and well in America or not? Obviously this question holds very deep undertones about the survivability of democracy itself. I fear that if we might prove to be too fearful to attempt to fairly address this question here in a format that attempts to offer reasonably unbiased answers to the public, such as Wikipedia, and in an article that specifically focuses on this one question, then other media such as the traditional news outlets which have already been vigorously attacked, may be unable to satisfactorily answer it either.

Should these attacks against traditional American journalism itself, somehow succeed, do you honestly believe that we at Wikipedia would then somehow miraculously be immune from the next wave of attacks, should we ever publish anything that the POTUS might disagree with? I beg you to please pause and to think honestly on this rather serious question for a moment. I would ask you to please have some small measure of patience regarding this question, and to please await the answer of administrator Beland, the creator of the article on the ethical standards of journalism, before reaching any conclusions here. I will most probably accept whatever administrator Beland advises.

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Totally agree with the nominator's rationale. This issue is already discussed at Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Relationship_with_the_media. I don't think anything from this article is useful to add there, but that section could probably use some additions for context and balance - what is Trump saying the media got wrong, what do the media think of those accusations? -- Beland (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Beland. I have said above all I will say on this question, and will now stand fully aside in silence here (unless specifically requested by Beland for a comment) for the rest of this discussion, to allow the consensus process to do whatever it will here (though I may still suggest to others that they might find this conversation to be of interest.) Scott P. (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attitude, and I hope I haven't hurt your feelings—I know deletion discussions can be upsetting. FourViolas (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 8 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) 20:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has made a credible claim that this article is about more than simply ethics in journalism -- I have added this discussion to the above deletion sorting pages, accordingly, in order to get the greatest number of participants, interested in relevant subject areas. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Journalism ethics and standards. If we want to have an article about journalistic ethics in the 21st-century US, or anti-journalism conspiracy theories, or Donald Trump's attacks on the press, it should not have the title "Ethical Journalism". In addition, I share FourViolas's concern that the article seems more like a persuasive essay than an encyclopedia article. At best, it could be rewritten significantly and moved to Donald Trump and the press or something like that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Journalism ethics and standards. This is an essay and coatrack, comprised of cherry-picked examples, that highlights topics that are already covered. It reminds me of a class assignment, where each student writes an article on journalistic ethics. Each student would offer different takes on the same very broad topic. There are many sub-topics that could plausibly be covered under the term "Ethical journalism" (wartime journalism, privacy and sources, fake news, propaganda, etc. etc.), and countless examples from history that could be arbitrarily highlighted for each subtopic. It is quite a stretch to think that somewhat googling "ethical journalism" is looking for anything related to Trump, U.S. politics, or even American journalism at all (Wikipedia is international). Even with a more specific title and narrower scope (e.g. "journalistic ethics in U.S. politics", this patchwork article would be problematic. Comparing current New York Times practices to its 2004 style manual is awfully close to WP:SYN. Compiling quotes (primary sources) from past presidents also seems more synthetic than I'm comfortable with for an encyclopedia article. While I don't think this article (by any name) is appropriate for an encyclopedia, it might have a place at Wikibooks, Wikiversity, or other alternative outlets. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:COATRACK, no value as a redirect because of the capitalisation. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, After reading all of your helpful and thoughtful comments here, I think I may have gotten the message. The page was simply not npov, it was an essay. Ok. Unless anyone objects, I would like to set this page as a redirect for now to the main Journalism ethics and standards page, and then possibly at sometime in the future, if it can be figured out how this topic could somehow be suitably covered without a single mention of the name, Trump, either directly or by direct implication, then to re-propose it? Deal? Scott P. (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottperry:: I'm not sure all the commenters here are male, but in any case, what usually happens with these discussions is that an uninvolved administrator comes along in a few days and reads all the comments and opinions and declares what consensus seems to favor, and implements the deletion or redirect if necessary. -- Beland (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(@Beland:) Yes, and whenever this discussion is closed, I will probably assist in "untangling" the page from template-space, and if applicable, moving it to "project-draft-space." Scott P. (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not redirect because of capitalisation per Charles Stewart, above. Laurdecl ^talk 02:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a problem? WP:POFR says redirects from likely alternative capitalizations are appropriate. Given that "journalism ethics and standards" is very unlikely to be a primary search target, capitalizing common redirects seems appropriate—WP:Redirects are cheap. FourViolas (talk) 03:25, 11 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) 05:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTSL[edit]

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

Neologism that does not seem to have notable usage. The only references I can find to this are things like the jargon file defining the term, which does not seem sufficient for inclusion. Originally redirected to RTFM but there was no mention of this abbreviation there. Perhaps restore redirect and add mention of this initialism? Sjrct (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it has lasted three years? So not really a neologism perhaps, more like an "in joke". Still far from an encyclopedic topic. Probably not worth a redirect since unlikely would be a search term. W Nowicki (talk) 17:47, 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. MBisanz ^talk 11:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netmeds[edit]

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

Clear company-initiated advertising of which WP:NOT and WP:Paid (non-negotiable policies apply) because it's clear the history's showing of accounts are that by paid employees or hired help, none of which is a convincing factor of notability or an article here; as it is, we've established in past consensus that these offered publications knowingly, blatantly and openly-label paid press, announcements, press releases, advertised interviews hosted by the company, something of which WP:CORPDEPTH states is unacceptable in [Unacceptable sources are]: Simple announcements, statements, press releases, anything by for the company, wherever published, anything where the company talks about itself or advertising and so to examine the sources: 1, 2, 3 and 4 and 6 are all announcements with clear labels of it, thus showing the company is the sole author, considering it's all focused in a self-POV, 5 is a clear PR award published in a business column video, 7 is also an announcement but it's a specialized trade PR publication, thus it's only used for self-advertising, 8 is similar but it's in fact another for-hire profile advertising. Another obvious sign this was started for self-advertising is the fact the largest sections (not that large, to begin with) are in fact the areas where their company services and offers are listed, so if we delete that, we have nothing but a few sentences, certainly not to convince WP:GNG. As stated here, I attempted to improve the article but couldn't simply because there was no genuine independent substance in which to start simplest changes, and a search along with others here showed the same publications involved company self-PR as before, thus it's only emphasizing the company is needing self-published attention and advertising, something of which has always been deleted, regardless, because of our main policy WP:Wikipedia is not a webhost. As our policies note, articles must be improved to our standards and policies to be acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. See below for source examples. See also: WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment and analysis - Source #2 is in the current article and is a clear business announcement, all of the others are literally quotes of either "The company announces today", "The company reported its company has....", "The company has made plans", etc. None of that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH as noted above. To quote what the article says "Netmeds acquired a comany today" (and it's part of their "business section" thus not indiscriminate considering it's going to say whatever the company advertises). #3 is their company plans and what they're accomplished in it so far....by their own company-authored words, thus instantly unacceptable for WP:CORPDEPTH, #4 is then once again a similar announcement to that past one, $5 is then a funding report, which as stated by WP:CORPDEPTH is unacceptable because it's brief announcements or statements, in which the company talked about itself, or anything published by for the company, wherever published, and that's actually the main section of WP:CORPDEPTH. The thing about #6 is that it actually states Article for minor upcoming business to advertise, so that's instantly unacceptable, not to mention, the accompanying PR-formatted information. With this said, all careful examinations of the other articles found the same conclusion, and that was within a few minutes. To emphasize this, I performed several other searches myself such as this, this and this and which found nothing but exact business announcements and statements, with the credited authorship by the company itself. Note how each search actually gave all of the same links, but without actually using the same keywords, showing this is simply all that exists for the company. WP:What Wikipedia is not then says "Simple listings, Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts....listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors...." and that's our two main functionaries for articles here. Once again, I'm absolutely willing to withdraw if and when the significant improvements are made, and not simply cosmetics ones as both of the policies offered above state. Also, to note, since GNG has been offered, to quote GNG....a subject may be presumed (but not guaranteed) to be notable if independent evidence, and not passing mentions or notices are used, in this case, since #6 itself was a clearly-labeled company press release, it would not satisfy our GNG, let alone anything else. We have never made GNG policy, simply because there's always been consensus that such cases have to be evaluated separately, as is the case here; our own users, including the paid spammers, have confessed they have personally paid for these articles, so because the links above share these same qualities, it's simply no different. Thus, why our main policy WP:NOT has always been unquestionably used, in all cases, even if notability was slightly possible, simply because it's never a guaranteed given. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Unicorn startup award" is just a complicated way of saying not yet notable. There's no need for complicated analysis of a pseudo=article like this. DGG ( talk ) 10:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG per your comment, "There's no need for complicated analysis...", did you read the sources I provided above? Just curious. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Not notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search reveals a number of sources that meet WP:RS and establish notability such as this and this one in the article and there are others. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this content belongs on the company web site, not on Wikipedia. No encyclopedic relevance here; strictly promotional & WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- does not yet appear to be notable. Reyk _YO! 14:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overtly promotional, poorly sourced to PR spots. Noticed lots of professional IP editing on this and also the promoter's page. Inlinetext (talk) 16:16, 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. Preponderance of discussion is to keep the existing article, and there is no copyvio issue. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bisley (solitaire)[edit]

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

Non-notable game. It appears in some (but, interestingly, by no means all) compendia of board games, but these compendia only really give a brief outline of its rules, and do not contain significant coverage. Also relevant is WP:INDISCRIMINATE: this is an encyclopedia, not a card games compendium, and if there are no reliable sources out there containing information other than the rules that we can use in an article, it does rather suggest that the game is non-notable. Amisom (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the problem. Someone decided to write an article on this topic and it is not a hoax. As shown by WP:BEFORE D1, sources are available on both Google books and Google web. Information in articles requires verifiability, not sources from an academic press. Unscintillating (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it is not compliant with WP:N. Verifiability is not enough; it also has to be a notable topic. Amisom (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe there is a list of solitaires as a merge target, if that is your concern. And failing the notability test doesn't prevent retention as a standalone article. Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And failing the notability test doesn't prevent retention as a standalone article. Yes it does. Read WP:N. Amisom (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have never heard of it but it's in my ancient Scarne's Encyclopedia of Games and, as Unscintillating has discovered, on many web sites. WP:N is a guideline for which there are "occasional exceptions", not a set of rules, but in this case applying the criteria leads me to think we should presume an article to be merited. Having an article looks just fine to me. Thincat ([[User Thincat)), howextensive in the material in thatbook? |talk]]) 09:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to DGG below. Thincat (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But if we agree that 'WP:ITEXISTS' is not sufficient basis for keeping an article, and that some additional notability is required, what is your reasoning for asserting that this case may be an exception to WP:n? It sounds like the point you're making (valid though it is) could be made in every single notability dispute. Amisom (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amisom: You have misunderstood me but I see, reading it again, what I wrote was exceptionally unclear! I think the notability criteria have been met but WP:N only takes that to mean an article may be presumed merited. I was accepting that people may think the criteria have been met but the article should still be deleted because this is an exceptional case. I do not think this is an exceptional case and I think the article should be kept. Of course, your other comment above is quite wrong. The notability guidelines do not require us to delete failing articles but that would not apply in this case anyway, in my view. Thincat (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cites no third-party sources. Sandstein 18:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's neither a WP:DEL7 nor a WP:V#Notability argument without adding WP:IAR. Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: The entire article has been copied, verbatim, from "Total Card Games! The Biggest and Best Collection of Solo & Group Card Games". Per policy WP:CV the page has been blanked and has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. CBS527^Talk 21:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I find that book as a problem. From what I see, "Total Card Games! copies most of its contents from Wikipedia, not to. One of the reviewer wrote:

This book appears to be nothing less than a printing out of Wikipedia pages for each of the card games. There appears to have been no editing done by the "author", so that useless information such as ""Deuces" redirects here. For other uses, see Deuces (disambiguation) and Big Two (disambiguation)" (page 388) has been transferred to the book. On the Wikipedia page this would have had hyperlinks to the relevant pages, but here is meaningless as there are no disambiguation pages in the book! And, of course, as the info in this book is static, it will always be better to just look at the Wikipedia page for any particular card game you are interested in as that may be updated and improved.

Also, as you would see from the edit history, the contents of the article date from 2005, a lot earlier the 2015 the e-book was "written." No offense, but you better check your sources. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviouslt not copyvio but reverse copyvio. If it is covered significantly by Scarne, famous authority, it's notable.Thincat,how extensive is the material on the game in that book? DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are 18 lines: Foundations, Layout and Play (1973 UK edition, ISBN 0094595208). So, more than a passing mention but not what I would call extensive either. Thincat (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has enough sources to retain it. Inlinetext (talk) 16:24, 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) 05:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1948 (film)[edit]

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

References cited do not talk about the film, but the author in general. Quality of the references is questioned as mostly blog entries. The proposers research did not find notable evidence for the movie or independent third party reviews of the book. The article itself speaks mostly in general terms about South African movies in a talkative way instead of being on point about the alleged movie. The article is/was part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mziboy and questions about notability in this regards have been raised before on related subjects and led to deletion. I bring forward a request for deletion for general lack of notability. Jake Brockman (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ken Sibanda's 1948 film Wikipedia[edit]

I would like to vote that this article be kept for the following reasons. While there are serious issues with the deleting editor's use of unsubstantiated accusations intended to appear as if this article is a part of an on going conflict of interest. This is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy to accuse other editors of sockpuppetry without any evidence. The link provided, from ten years ago, is not timely.

- The film, 1948, is notable because it satisfies Wikipedia's notability definition, which is not based on fame but on contribution to field. Sibanda is one of a few, not sure what is so offensive by this fact: please look at Apartheid films one after the other. In the same vein, a white Jazz musician would be notable under Wiki's guidelines because that field is primarily considered black music.

- I think its fairly accepted that most movie directors from South Africa have been white, and so even if nothing has yet been written it qualifies under Wikipedia's guidelines.

I think there is a serious problem with the tone and attitude of the editor seeking deletion of this article. He assumes the article is part of a thread or conflict with a permantly banned editor Mziboy, which it's not.

There seems to be a personal issue going on here, namely Ken Sibanda's work is not notable. I have never meet Ken Sibanda, but he deserves to be treated fairly just like all the other "white" South African directors are treated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutombofromcongo (talk • contribs) 17:01, February 28, 2017 (UTC) — Mutombofromcongo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I cannot find any significant coverage from reliable sources to establish notability for the topic. This is the criteria that Wikipedia applies. Wikipedia follows coverage from such sources, so if there is no coverage, it cannot follow in writing about the topic. If others can find coverage about this film, I'd be happy to reevaluate my stance. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Erik and because SPAs' keep !votes don't need whole subsections. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As mentioned in the nomination, not a single one of the sources is about this film, and many (if not all) of them are not reliable sources. Looking for sources, I'm finding very almost nothing, merely the product pages for the book the film is based on. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:25, 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 merge to Out-of-place artefact. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 17:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aiud object[edit]

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

No reliable sources given, and I cannot find anything on Google Books, even though this was supposedly discovered four decades ago. Total Google hits are 333. Utterly non-notable and seriously dodgy. Slashme (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very few references and most of them are conspiracy bloggers or debunkers. Not much in the way of reliable references.Glendoremus (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 11:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 11:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 11:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current sources are terrible but these "out-of-place artefacts" often are notable. "Aiud object" is a translation and doesn't seem to be a good search term; probably most of the coverage is in Romanian (obiectul de la Aiud or calcaiul de la Aiud). But I'm having trouble sifting out reliable sources from the conspiracy theorist blogs since I'm relying on Google Translate. – Joe (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is some noise on some pseudoscientific sites in Romanian. Many call it "Călcâiul de la Aiud" ("The heel of Aiud", from the impression some conspiracy theorists have that it's some kind of heel of some kind of anthropomorphic robot). Some reliable media sources that say something about it are this one, which mostly states that the item attracted no interest from specialists, only from the general public, and this one which cites a 1983 book that bases the mistery on the author's evaluation that the part is too heavily oxidized to have been produced in the past century. This semi-reliable site suggests that the item is actually a part of the landing gear mechanism of a WWII-era Messerschmitt Me 262 airplane.- Andrei (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to out-of-place artefact. No independent notability, but it is an example of how such "paranormal" fringe topics are discussed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the story (or even the story itself) is verifiable enough to merge into any article. Reliable sources have totally ignored these fantastic claims. The only sources are bloggers, out-of-print Romanian UFO magazines, and rumor-mongers like the Daily Mail. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to out-of-place artefact, picking up a few RS mentions (well they are RS at this time) [2] , but not really finding anything that really established notability.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Out-of-place artifact. As a long time (if former) true believer, I don't accept that I would have never heard of this thing before now, yet simultaneously accept that it's been notable this whole time. The sources used in the article do nothing to contradict me. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 13:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Out-of-place artifact. I was going to vote Delete per LuckyLouie, because I thought Out-of-place artifact was for bona fide "artifacts of historical, archaeological, or paleontological interest found in an unusual context", as stated in the first sentence of that article. But reading on, I realized that the use of the term "is largely confined to cryptozoologists, proponents of ancient astronaut theories, Young Earth creationists, and paranormal enthusiasts." And indeed, the long list, which includes the Aiud object, contains mainly ridiculous claims, hoaxes, a 1920s spark plug erroneously dated as prehistoric, etc etc. The Aiud object fits right in. And I believe it's both encyclopedic and useful to have a list of this stuff, with some commentary on each, as the credulous may be enlightened thereby. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, I totally agree, notable fringe nonsense deserves to be covered. Just can't find any non-fringe/non-sensational sources to cite from. For example, if as someone suggested, text is sourced to the UK Express the description of the Aiud artifact included in Out-of-place artifact would describe how this "mystery wedge" has "experts stunned by 250,000-year-old aluminium"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery wedge, LOL. I'm stunned too, even without being an expert. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yep, we say what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the UK Express source uncritically states stuff like "a piece of manufactured aluminium has been unearthed which dates back 250,000 years". Which is a WP:REDFLAG claim, so it certainly won't be going into our WP article as fact. If there's no other reliable source, I guess we're stuck with the Express? Just slap "allegedly" and "claimed" all over the place? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Out-of-place artifact, per reasons already stated. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:10, 10 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Raquelsantos Lugay[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: BEFORE did not produce significant coverage in demonstrably independent and reliable sources. —swpb^T 18:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 18:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 18:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A battalion commander is unlikely to be notable, though it is always hard to judge from a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I don't find anything either, but could be convinced if there was evidence of reliable sources (offline or otherwise). In any case, it looks like he was not a battalion commander, but rather, was in a battalion under the overall command of Luna. I don't know if Luna was ever personally in command of a battalion during the war, but I doubt it, so if the article is kept, this should be clarified. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given the information as presented at this time; not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there's no indication he was more than a medical corps lieutenant and later a kindly country doctor. If he did write about the death of his battalion commander, that will make a great reference (if the commander is notable).--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:07, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Keam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not an obviously notable author. This was tagged WP:CSD#G4 but I stopped short of deleting it because this version, unlike the one that was deleted, has some sources. However, the references are all self-published or run of the mill book reviews (where the author is just one of many in a stock round-up), and a search for other sources draws a complete blank. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant indepdent coverage of her work as a writer in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete prolific author with two vanity book awards, and no significant independent coverage that I can find. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:10, 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) 05:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant (role-playing game)[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable game published by non-notable company. Two of three references are from the publishing company's website, the other is from an online database. LynxTufts (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added to improve completeness of in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_role-playing_games_by_name Further reference could come from RPG.net (https://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=10959) or reviews (http://story-games.com/forums/discussion/3505/review-covenant, https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13146.phtml) but may not be deemed to add significantly. No argument around notability of game or company, but do believe game was formally published in a small run, not just electronically or Print on Demand, so felt may warrant inclusion on that basis. --Thedicemechanic (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would a single page covering all games produced by that Company / Designer be more appropriate? --Thedicemechanic (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability whatsoever. And I am a roleplayer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a completely unnotable tabletop RPG. There are essentially no reliable, third party sources that mention this game at all that I can find. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:29, 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 speedy deleted per WP:G1. @Operator873: There's no need to go through articles for deletion for obvious cases of graffiti. Deryck C. 16:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teagan Swanepoel[edit]

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

Not an article. Operator873 (talk) 16:29, 8 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, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anca Pop[edit]

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

No particular indication of notability. WP:MUSICBIO points 2-12 don't appear to apply. As to point 1, the sourcing is mediocre at best. We have:

Some cruft ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) - not really worth addressing in detail
A biography formerly hosted on a television station website, with obvious promotional intent
Another biography from the firm that released her album
A blurb from "Playboy PR"; she had recently appeared on their cover
A news brief informing readers that the subject had been invited to Cannes (not really a marker of notability)
A tabloid press release
And, best of all, the tabloid announcement that the subject is "free of sexual limitations"

So, while some biographical ephemera does exist, it seems quite apparent that this individual isn't notable as a musician. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as shown in the nomination none of the sources provide significant coverage that is clearly in 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the article will be deleted, please move everything in a draft so I can develop the article better and I will get it back when she will be notable. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 02:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments and Wikipedia:Too soon. This article can be recreated in the future if the subject gets more significant coverage. If deleted, I would support the decision to move this back into the creator's user space so he or she can continue to work on it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing is barely sufficient to squeak through. Inlinetext (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A case of WP:TOOSOON. No issues with it being userfied, in fact, that would be best, since there is an editor willing to work on it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have deleted articles with much better sourcing. In this case, her only real connection to notability is via Goran_Bregović. I have to agree with the others; it's just too soon to declare her even barely notable. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 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. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 17:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pechersk School International[edit]

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

This article is very much a promotion and the cleanup most likely can't save the article. It's contributors are mostly students and other people affiliated with the school. This explains the very accurate description of the school in the article, seemingly without having references. FriyMan ^talk 15:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an IB school, usually they get some press. Also, if it's truly the only school in Ukraine to be accredited in three IB programs, that may provide some notability. This seems to be one for further research. Someone with Ukrainian and/or Russian language may be able to help. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Shhhnotsoloud, WP:PROMOTION Clearly says, that Wikipedia is not for promotion. This is the reason, why this article is nominated for deletion. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 08:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. AusLondonder (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In order to be deleted as advertising, an article must not have any relevant or encyclopedic content. See DEL4. Even our most unsympathetic subjects, say, biographies of businessmen admittedly written by PR agents, are rarely deleted at AFD as advertising, and the recent schools RFC made clear that schools are to be treated with particular concern. This article has more than enough encyclopedic, if uncited, information to foreclose deletion on promotionalism grounds, and no other reason for deletion has been advanced. Rebb ing 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 00:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DataFlex[edit]

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

This has been tagged as being unsourced since September 2014. I searched a bit for sources and I couldn't find anything relevant - everything I found is either not independent or about companies and/or products with similar names (there seem to be several). I think this article does not satisfy the general notability guideline and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is an article about the same software, just under a different brand name, and also has no sources:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dataflex was big in its day; but its day was long ago. There'll be loads of RS in computer magazines of the 1980s & early 1990s. Just because you can't find RS with an internet search does not mean they do not exist. It really isn't helpful to want to delete history like this. A point of an encyclopedia is to be able to find information on obscure subject matter. Bottom line: this is a very disappointing AfD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While you might not have found anything about the programming language, it is still used by thousands of developers on a day by day bases. If you think my edits where too commercial then that is your opinion. I just added what I believed was correct and improved the page. Personally I frown on that removal, but what can I do but accept your choice? FWIW I happen to program in DataFlex and run the largest open source website for that language (http://www.vdf-guidance.com ) Maybe the resources page at vdf-guidance helps you find things? --Wilva (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does an old magazine issue help as a source? https://archive.org/details/nzbitsandbytes-5-03 --Wilva (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Another one here: https://shop.heise.de/katalog/datenjongleur-1 and also here: https://shop.heise.de/katalog/weltenbummler --Wilva (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Visual DataFlex into this one. I can easily find sources from the 1980s. Yes, software did exist way back then, and this appears to be a somewhat pioneering technology. Two bad articles is certainly worse than one decent one. W Nowicki (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems there was a court case "Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd." which is often cited in Australian law! Who knew. That should be mentioned. W Nowicki (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Personal independent testimonial and argumentation to keep the article on DataFlex. Since the end of the 80's, I am, as an independent software developer in Belgium, using the DataFlex suites as my primary software development environment. I have built unix, CM, windows, ajax, web3 and mobile applications with it. Nowadays the ability to fast develop web3, mobile and touch apps together with soap, json etc are embedded in the same studio. This makes the environment very modern, following todays trends and technologies. Through multiple middle layer drivers, it can be connected natively to most commercial DB environments. Dataflex applications are being used by small companies up to multinationals. The software that we have developed are used by users, seating in approx. 15 different countries, and that's just for me. My personal reference solution connects to a DB of + 250GB. Our longest ongoing project with continuous added functionality started in 1995 and has been evolving week after week since then. From these environments, we are exchanging information with the nr 1 ERP system, other ERP systems, automation lines, industrial PDA's, labo integration, specific test equipment, or better said, what people currently call IoT. During my career, I have given multiple courses, lectures and demonstrations. Velpenf (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google books search shows results in both InfoWorld and PC Mag magazines from 80s and 90s. Plenty of coverage to estabilish notability. I may add some more references to the article. Pavlor (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I repost this reference I added to the article, because it is 10 (full) pages comparison of three programmable databases (FoxPro, DataFlex, Advanced Revelation), should solve notability issue once and for all (I hope link is correct):
  - Duncan, Judy; Petreley, Nicholas; Chiu, Peter; Mathews, Carla (November 18, 1991). "Product comparison, Database building blocks". InfoWorld. Vol. 13, no. 46. IDG. pp. 87, 90, 92–93, 96, 100–103, 106. ISSN 0199-6649. Pavlor (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have been working with DataFlex since 2001. I work for a UK based company that provides software for the not-for-profit sector, and the Institute of Fundraising has twice awarded us the best CRM database supplier in the last 4 years, so DataFlex is hugely important to us. We have approximately 200 clients spread through the whole of the UK who benefit greatly from our ability to deliver solutions on a rapid timescale thanks to the DataFlex programming language. Our product is written for Windows but we have just started to use the language to create mobile applications and solutions. Braggovic (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a regular contributor to the Wikimedia Foundation, I'm very disappointed in this apparent aggressive removal strategy. I understand that keeping the information current and correct is essential, but as DataFlex is used in Many Many large and small organisations I don not understand why its removal. Personally I have been on the Committee of the Independent DataFlex Developers And Users Group http://www.ddug.org, organizing annual conferences in the Asia Pacific region since 2000. I'm the director of a DataFlex Specialist Consultancy http://www.28it.com.au. Among our customers are large insurance companies, companies dealing with government data, as well as small industrial companies. Some have '90's style application wanting/needing to go to Mobile/Touch (while maintaining their investment in DataFlex code), others are on the Windows platform (formerly called Visual DataFlex). Removing the DataFlex and Visual DataFlex pages is a bad idea. However the DataFlex community could do a better job in improving the information on these pages. So I guess thanks for pointing out that this should be a priority, the potential deletion certainly woke us up..Mkuipers (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:13, 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) 07:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Morrissey (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: BEFORE did not produce significant coverage in demonstrably independent and reliable sources. PROD removed w/o comment. —swpb^T 14:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not at all indepdent, reliable 3rd party sources. The article makes it look like some of these films are notable, but one is a rediect to this article, and one is a redirect to a disambiguation page that does not lead to an article on the film in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page has been updated with reliable 3rd party sources and new web links.DafoeGordon (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the links, both old and new, are merely passing mentions or brief directory entries. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 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) 06:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoganandh Muddhan[edit]

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

Non-notable film personality. Winged Blades^Godric 14:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 14:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The links go back to Wikipedia. The chart is a giant blue mess. What is a "co-director"? Bearian (talk) 02:23, 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) 06:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Altanpurev[edit]

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

Non-notable child presenter - host of minor awards - not supported by references. There appears to be some COI pushing this. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.FITINDIA (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment certainly fails WP:V on the internet, perhaps some Mongolian editors can supply offline or unindexed sources Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 8 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) 06:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Robinson (mixed martial artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable as a mixed martial artist or business interests. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable mixed martial artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 9 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) 07:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gajari Dot Com (Book)[edit]

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

The two references provided include one dictionary definition of the word "gajari" in Assamese and one link to a newspaper article with text that cannot be translated by a service like Google Translate. There is no indication within the article as to why the subject is notable (it does not appear to have received any awards). A Google search turns up a series of book launch announcements but no substantive discussion of the book. If there is an article in the Assamese Wikipedia (?) it is not linked here and I am unsure how to conduct a search for it. KDS4444 (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Some clarifications. The Gajari Dot Com community is a closed facebook group of 9000 member. I am creating an assamese wikipedia entry for the book, but donot know how to link the two. will go though the tutorial page one more time. Meanwhile if it gets deleted, will again create an entry linking the two anyway Saugot (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Please be aware that Facebook is not considered a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE of information for establishing notability, and any recreation you make of this article which depends on Facebook alone as a standard of that notability will also likely result in a deletion, even if the Assamese article is never deleted (different Wikipedias have different standards for notability). If you recreate the article repeatedly, the subject may become WP:SALTed, which I doubt is your intent. Please base your evidence for inclusion here on the English Wikipedia on reliable independent secondary sourcing! Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-@KDS4444 and Saugot: As of now, the article in Assamese Wikipedia has not been created. Statistics of the contribution of the user show no participation other than at en.wiki and commons.And I have to the best of my abilities checked the new-pages created in Assamese Wikipedia--the page has not been created by any other user too!Winged Blades^Godric 11:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per nom.Winged Blades^Godric 11:09, 9 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) 06:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Keith Wolff[edit]

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

Apparently not notable by our standards. I wanted to add a reference to support at least something that is written in the page, but couldn't find a single one in Gbooks, Gnews or Gnews archive. He has certainly taken some pictures, including one of Jimi Hendrix, and it may be him who was director of the Association of Illustrators (Great Britain) in 1981. But I see no sign of in-depth coverage. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources may be out there in print, but I see nothing encouraging in News, books or web searches.96.127.243.41 (talk) 08:28, 9 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) 06:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Emma Mills[edit]

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

Co-founder of non-notable companies fails to pass WP:GNG no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 23:08, 8 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Coward (1939 film)[edit]

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

Mexican film that apparently has not won any awards and has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. The only reference given in the article as it stands is to a dictionary of filmmakers in the third world (which is a directory); a Google search under the Spanish title turned up a number of other trivial mentions but no actual discussion. There is no equivalent article in the Spanish Wikipedia (El cobarde is the title of a song by a Chilean group but no other meaning is given). KDS4444 (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Keep: Well it does seem to be minor. I've found a Spanish plot summary (and cited it) ~~but little else. Suggest we merge and redirect to René Cardona with a brief mention, in fact I'll put one there now.~~ Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of refs from Erik's Google Books, and then a different search revealed the New York Times review from 1939 (God bless their archive), so I've added a section on Reception as well. As we now have multiple reliable sources, I've changed my !vote to Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep because Google Books shows Spanish-language results with the keywords "El cobarde" "René Cardona" René Cardona. This film may not have English-language coverage, but the results seem to show that books about Mexican films have covered this. Can a Spanish-speaking editor review the results and provide their feedback? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revised my stance per Chiswick Chap's improvements. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aunque me parece que la mayoría de los resultados son sólo ejemplos de menciones triviales en varios directorios del cine mexicano, si fue revisado en el New York Times, entonces ...

I withdraw my nomination KDS4444 (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC) (But Chiswick Chap, could you provide a link to the New York Times article, even if it is behind a paywall? I can't track it from the change you made to the article— thanks!). KDS4444 (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 9 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 deleted as a copyvio RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahla abdul razak[edit]

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

No indication of notability, or references, in article. An independent search fails to turn-up anything that would pass GNG. Fails POLOUTCOMES. DarjeelingTea (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:G12, copyvio of https://www.dsoa.ae/en/about-dubai-silicon-oasis/leadership-team/ --Drm310 (talk) 14:30, 8 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 per CSD G11: this is an obvious advertisement for the firm. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MyHouse Australia[edit]

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

This business appears to have no claim to notability as per WP:COMPANY or general. Article created by single purpose user which suggests WP:NPOV and WP:NOR issues (especially using social media as references. WP:PROD was removed by author without response Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 8 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) J 947 00:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Genna[edit]

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

Current referencing does not meet WP:GNG, and searches did not turn up anything not already used in the article, except for a single press release. Does not appear to meet either WP:NARTIST or WP:NACADEMIC either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Someone added several references since the nomination. There do seem to be some book publicaitons and article, but they are all in Italian, so I cannnot assess them. Notability seems borderline if it exists.104.163.140.193 (talk) 01:49, 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 07:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there is a possible claim to notability for her work in sustainable printing techniques. She might satisfy WP:ARTIST 2: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. I don't read Italian well enough to find out more about her publications, unfortunately. Mduvekot (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After looking into this more carefully, I realize Genna is one of Italy's most notable etchers. The sources now listed testify to her status but no doubt much more could be found.--Ipigott (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Ipigott. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ipigott's research and argument.--Theredproject (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinayaksingh101 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is Vinayaksingh101 2nd edit ever, and he is suspected of socking.L3X1 (distant write) 23:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep per Ipigott. L3X1 (distant write) 23:45, 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 speedy delete. Speedied as G7 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chanmyaeaung[edit]

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

foreign language Stephreef (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for tagging WP:ATD-T. That being said, the article provides no idea of who Chanmyaeaung is! Being a "Cal-Comp Electronics investor" is not notable. I'm not sure, though. Maybe the editor who created the article intends to add more... Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:08, 8 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 as a duplicate article. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cadena Global de Televisión de China[edit]

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

foreign language Stephreef (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is already an English language version of this article. I think this was intended to be at https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadena_Global_de_Televisi%C3%B3n_de_China. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I have tagged it accordingly for speedy deletion, as a poor duplicate of CGTN (TV channel). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 8 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) 06:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USS Barracuda (SP-23)[edit]

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

Considering it was never even acquired, let alone commissioned, I see zero claim to notability. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What a sad little story, with no notability or educational value whatsoever. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I'll repeat my comments from a recent debate over deleting a similar article: A few years ago, to improve Wikipedia′s rather sparse coverage of the U.S. Navy in World War I, I embarked on a solo effort to develop an entire series of articles on the vast section patrol program of incorporating civilian ships and craft into the Navy. (Wikipedia's coverage of the U.S. Navy is very biased toward the American Civil War, World War II, and very recent naval operations.) I wrote hundreds of articles covering the various boats and ships, and Wikipedia's coverage now is more or less complete, subject to new sources of information arising. A few of the ships and craft appear in Navy and other records under the name and SP numbers they would have had if they had been commissioned, but they never were. For the sake of completeness and to eliminate all confusion, I included these in my project when I could find out enough about them to do so. Their notability derives from the association with the section patrol program, not from their individual histories. It always disappoints me to see the nomination of real history articles for deletion when Wikipedia retains so many trivial articles on science fiction characters and video games and whatnot, but if this really is taking up too much room on a server and needs to be deleted, then please ensure you retain the knowledge imparted in the deleted article by including all relevant information on a shipindex or other page elsewhere in Wikipedia so that knowledge of the vessel is not lost. If you are not going to do that, then please leave the article alone. Mdnavman (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

I agree with you on the fictional cruft, I've always thought there should be a fiction Wikipedia separate from the real enyclopedia. If you want to work on making a list that has images and info on the different SP ships I'd down to help. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Mdnavman's comments above, one way to handle this would be to have a list of ships in this situation (eg, registered for possible service with the USN but never acquired) - the sourcing seems more likely to establish notability for such a group rather than the individual ships. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 8 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) 13:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a U.S. warship.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable civilian vessel, I'm afraid. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They also serve who only stand and wait. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagreed that the consensus was delete and myself !voted keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Wistaria (SP-259). However, I think the case is weaker for this article than for the Wisteria, and can't bringmyself to !vote keep, unless I saw more evidence of notability. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this was a small watercraft never actually acquired or commissioned by the US Navy there's no reason to think that sufficent sources are available to establish notability. The article's title is misleading. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no claim to notability, nor sufficient referencing to show it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't think there's enough to establish notability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:17, 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) 06:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hakin9[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (media) requirement. Non-notable Internet publication. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. I have submmited a A7 CSD for Unremarkable Websites/Web content. I agree that it fails on notability. I would also argue that the page is mainly focused on several 'controversies' caused by the blog, and is not shown in a very neutral way. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:54, 8 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. Could be re-nominated. (non-admin closure) J 947 00:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lowtide[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)

Delete. Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, which is sourced entirely to primary sources and blogs with no evidence of real reliable source coverage in real media shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a band is entitled to have an article just because they exist; real reliable source coverage, supporting a real claim of notability that passes NMUSIC, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep except discography, which should be re-incoporated into the main article. I've recently added three reviews for their debut album into the band's article. This now satisfies WP:BAND#1 and likewise, WP:NALBUM#1.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the band and their album as there is sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. The following two are both extensive pieces about the band.

Emery, Patrick (18 July 2014), "Aces of basses", The Age

McBride, Paul (24 July 2014), "Tidal waves", MX Melbourne

The later newspaper also had a substantial review (****1/2) of their selftitled record in the same edition.

McBride, Paul (24 July 2014), "Spinning around", MX Melbourne

The age also had a very short review (4/5) on the same day as their article.

Emery, Patrick (18 July 2014), "cd reviews", The Age

MX articles also appeared in MX Brisbane and MX Sydney.

Merge the discog to the main article, the main article and discog are not too large when combined. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has enough coverage in independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinayaksingh101 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Relies heavily upon primary sources and the sources don't seem to be reliable as per WP:RS. -=Troop=- (talk) 20:49, 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) 06:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IDS NEXT Software[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability or passing WP:ORG. Sources (if any) are mostly press releases not independent sources. Last AFD closed with no contributors. Ajf773 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does no more than describe a company going about its business (developing its software, providing client training):run of the mill activity rather than indicating encyclopaedic notability. Nor do the given sources or those found by search, including the tailored Indian news source search, indicate better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Any article that says they provide solutions while the subject has nothing at all to do with solvents was written by marketing. Even if the company were notable from being around so long, it would need to have an article in English. W Nowicki (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:19, 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) 06:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maskulin Music Group[edit]

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

Unreferenced (aside from official site) stub tagged since August 2012. Searches return no WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe article cites no secondary sources. I did a Google search and didn't come up with any good secondary sources. This article very clearly does not meet standards for notability and should be deleted.2602:30A:2ED1:2EE0:141C:9E8B:6F41:2A29 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fler; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:10, 8 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) 06:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted Encrypted File (TEF)[edit]

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

Sourced completely to a single website where the creator of the page has likely COI. The website itself is not a reliable source. I could not find anything independent in a Google search with this term and therefore cannot establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added three reliable sites/sources proving their patent on this technology that outputs this formate (TEF).

User:Therobmilne (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2017 (EST)

Hi @Therobmilne:. Just my opinion and I am only one editor, but everything you added today is specific to the company itself, not the topic of the page. Are you able to provide sources other than the company website that talk about the topic? Also, can you review the conflict of interest notice left on your talk page in January last year and make the appropriate disclosures if applicable? --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly is an advertisement for one company's technology. This article violates so many style guidelines (starting with the title - we do not put acronyms at the end like that in titles) it is beyond a rescue. Doing a google search on the company all I find is its founder Nandini Jolly doing the usual self-promotion. Her personal article is also up for deletion since it is also very promotional and badly cited. I notice very few dates are given, so another argument is that it is too soon to meet notability requirements. Things seem to start in 2014 or so? Maybe some day a well-cited article on the combined person, her company, and a very short mention of the company file format, might work. But these are below the threshold in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and User:W Nowicki, fails WP:CORP. Blatant promotional content, mostly self references. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:22, 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) 06:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Paul Sederholm[edit]

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

The article lacks sifficient strong sources to pass GNG. Beyond this, the article in a lot of ways over emphasizes Sederholm's importance to the history of the Hill Cumorah Pageant. The decision to end missionary participation was based on a directive from LDS Church president Harold B. Lee given when he visited the pageant in 1973. I have the impression that other changes in the casting were also made higher up. Sederholm was the person implementing these decisions, not the one making them. No other indication that he is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article does not establish notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is not significant and independent. Being mentioned in an article or writing one doesn't do the job of meeting WP:GNG. 2601:248:4500:9523:43C:32C0:AC8B:3F10 (talk) 20:16, 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) 06:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nandini Jolly[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Outside of the promotional tone, I could not locate any significant, in-depth coverage of subject to establish notability. The closest I found was this from The Globe and Mail which reads more like a testimonial about the company [8]. CNMall41 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found another in depth recent article a journalist did on Nandini. Do you suggest adding in the Globe and Mail one to the wiki page too? Link Therobmilne (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2017 (EST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Therobmilne also created a badly styled article promoting her company's file format: Trusted Encrypted File (TEF) which is also up for deletion. I would say the person has a slightly better argument for notability, but this is clearly a vanity piece. W Nowicki (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Fails WP:BIO. 1 article in the G&M is not significant coverage, nor establishes any enduring legacy or impact. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fairness to the article's creator, I do think that the newly-added CPA Canada article strengthens the "keep" argument a little bit, but not enough. Essentially all we have here is a businessperson who started a company. I'm not seeing any claim to significance that goes beyond that. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:14, 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 merge to Typisk norsk. Kurykh (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kjell (letter)[edit]

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

Forgotten, one-time gimmick on a tv show. Geschichte (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the AfD. As creator, naturally I think we ought to keep this; the letter has continued to be discussed (in Norwegian), though not used. If it is deleted, hopefully the information could be saved through a merger into the relevant section in Typisk norsk. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per User:Metaknowledge. I cannot find any reliable English sources (scholar, books, news), and for the cited source I have to AGF (no google preview). With only one source, it doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. If more sources could be provided (perhaps by a Norwegian speaker), I would be happy to reconsider, but one book mention, likely in passing, doesn't establish notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Merge as per Metaknowledge - interesting tidbit, but not enough for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:07, 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) 06:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Evans (blogger)[edit]

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

Only one of the sources, the one from the Salt Lake Tribune, is actually an indepdent, 3rd party, reliable source that provides significant coverage. The rest is pretty much all bios on websites he's connected with, and blogs by him. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are not independent of the subject.Car4tea1 (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Strike blocked sockpuppeteer !vote. Kurykh (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any policy rationales to delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The policy reasons to delete is that especially living people need to pass the general notability guidelines. And 1 article is not the multiple 3rd party secondary sources needed to pass these guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references are his writings and nothing shows he's a notable author. I don't see any significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. 2601:248:4500:9523:43C:32C0:AC8B:3F10 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:08, 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. Rename to List of leaders of Arab League member states. (non-admin closure) f eminist 14:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arab leaders[edit]

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

This is just trivial and inaccurate. Anything useful could be mentioned in passing at Arab League. But the article's title is that it's about Arab "leaders" and then mentions several heads of state and government of non-Arab states (e.g. Somalia and Djibouti--they are not Arab). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename ~~List of current leaders of the Arab League?~~ List of leaders of Arab League member states. We've already got List of G8 leaders and List of East Asian leaders in the Japanese sphere of influence (1931–1945)(!). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Clarityfiend. Charles Essie (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to ~~List of Arab League leaders~~ List of leaders of Arab League member states. Meets WP:LISTPURP, in part as evidenced by the 1,414 page views the page has received in the last thirty days. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of my !vote; added link to "List of leaders of Arab League member states". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus to rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of leaders of Arab League member states (not List of Arab League leaders which is ambiguous because it could mean leaders of the Arab League organisation). "Somalia and Djibouti--they are not Arab" is not necessarily true (depending on definition of "Arab"): both countries are Member states of the Arab League. I have noticed, however, inconsistencies or misunderstanding in Template:Arab country leaders caused by a recent edit which I have now reverted, and that template has had several very recent name changes. To be consistent, Template:Arab country leaders should be similarly renamed Template:Leaders of Arab League member states. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: Djibouti and Somalia aren't Arabic-speaking places so the peoples there aren't Arabs. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: From the articles - Somalia: "In addition to Somali, Arabic, which is also an Afro-Asiatic tongue, is an official national language in Somalia." Djibouti: "There are two official languages in Djibouti: Arabic (Afroasiatic) and French (Indo-European)". I said "depending on your definition". If your definition is "members of the Arab League" or "has Arabic as an official language" then they are Arab countries. However, let's not go there. Avoid the debate by specifying "Arab League member states" in both the nominated article and its associated template. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Clarityfiend. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:44, 11 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shingi Munyeza[edit]

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

Unremarkable businessman Nördic Nightfury 08:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Reading over the article, as well as the sources led me to believe that he has some sort of credibility. He was a CEO of a large hotel management company in Zimbabwe. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 10:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:25, 8 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) 06:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tachyon Technologies[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. possible advert created by single purpose editor. coverage is very limited LibStar (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fastest-growing sectoral lists are not in themselves evidence of notability. Nor is either the article content or output of my searches indicating this to be more than one of the many firms providing SAP-based services. (Note: there is some 2011 coverage of a similarly named firm based in India.) Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable software company.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:22, 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) 06:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional models[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously closed in November as no consensus, and there has been little done then to improve the list's content. There are no sources and no demonstrable need for inclusion or how it benefits the encyclopedia. For lack of better word, this is WP:LISTCRUFT. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's already a category with the same content. Isn't that enough?!?!Glendoremus (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:LISTN requires that reliable sources discuss the topic as a whole, and I don't see evidence of that. There were a few hits on Google News and Google Books, but they seem to be discussing other stuff, such as fictional models of cars. If someone finds significant coverage, they can recreate the page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It fails WP:LISTN with its utter lack of available sources, and is nothing more than listcruft. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:36, 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) 06:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiefy Adi Kusmargono[edit]

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

No independent evidence in article of notability. Google search does not turn up any independent evidence of notability. (It is true that he does have the position that it says he has.) Reads like a resume. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a wikipedia article, it is the rehashing of a facebook resume. Nothing about Kusmargono indicates he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTRESUME and borderline case of WP:BLPPROD (only one source, but not reliable since it's Facebook). --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:24, 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsuya Iwanaga (model)[edit]

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

Appears to be purely promotional material for someone who is in a WP:TOOSOON situation. However, notability is difficult to assess because all the sources are in Japanese -- if someone could ping wikiproject Japan, that might help. Possibly recommend userfying or a move back to draft space. The individual might eventually be notable, but isn't quite yet even if you combine WP:NMODEL, WP:NACTOR to get to WP:GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 07:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) f eminist 14:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Waterhouse[edit]

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

Totally unremarkable Doctor (and author) and article seems to be quite promotional. I can find few mentions of him and virtually no coverage in independent reliable sources. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No pass of WP:Prof. Only hope is WP:GNG orWP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: I am certainly picking up hits in sources of borderline reliability, such as Politicus USA (who calls Waterhouse's Strength for His People the antithesis to Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World) and this book (published by Ivan R. Dee) which notes that Strength for His People is highly recommended by the National Alliance on Mental Illness. I will keep on looking. St Anselm (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found little in the way of coverage of him but by all means, if it can be found, that's great. The other issue as I've noted is that the article appears to be little more than promo as well. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced aspects of his career to 2 articles in daily newspapers, albeit one of them local. Quite a few of the hits in gBooks look promising.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 11:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per coverage mentioned above. St Anselm (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- per coverage above. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 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. Kurykh (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gel Wipe[edit]

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

This article appears to be about a specific product from one company. There is one reference to an industry magazine article. In looking for other coverage, I can only find ads selling this stuff, but not any more coverage about the product that would establish notability. Whpq (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 11:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 11:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 territory, and manages to be promotional to boot. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd say redirect to SATU Laboratory, but the company's not even notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:16, 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) 06:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Kasassoglou[edit]

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

Article does not seem to meet the notability criteria for musicians. JayCodec (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:15, 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) 06:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archport Laboratories[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. All the sources I could find are either WP:ROUTINE coverage or are not from independent sources. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine WP:CORPSPAM, I wish we could nuke such WP:YELLOWPAGES on sight. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Pure WP:CORPSPAM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:13, 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) 06:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dietmar Post[edit]

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

Autobiographical article created by now-blocked WP:COI. Sources don't demonstrate WP:NOTE as either non-WP:RS or non-WP:V. WP:BEFORE does not show any sources to comply with significant coverage in independent sources, being mainly CV's, social media, mirrors, or directly linked to article subject. Unable to find evidence meets WP:GNG or any applicable WP:SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable person. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable film director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:FILMMAKER.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to meeting WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:12, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Oneal[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Does not meet WP:GNG - coverage found during searches is a mix of passing mentions, blog entries and his own website & social media. Article attempts to inherit notability from the events he has been involved in & the people he has worked with, but that's not enough to pass the GNG threshold. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This probably could be speedy deleted as an unsourced biography of a living person created after some date in 2012 (or is it 2010). There are no sources, and even the claim to notability is extremely weak.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- what the what? This is not even an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 9 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) 06:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JenkinsEar2K[edit]

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

The first derby match will not be played until July 19, 2017. There is no indication that the name will be JenkinsEar2K. Currently no support for that title can be found anywhere. This is both WP:TOOSOON and WP:OR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walter can you give me some time? This article was created in anticipation of what will begin in a matter of months. I'm still locating all the sources. How much time do I have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolyfett (talk • contribs) 01:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally a few days while editors look for sources to verify if the event is notable or not. The main issue is that there are no sources for the name itself. There may actually be a derby (or rivalry cup) here, but there's not enough to support that now. A similar thing happened with the Hudson River Derby. Fans created the page. It was deleted. Matches were played and it became notable. It moved around but it was eventually populated and all objection to its existence was silenced. Check the AfD and the edit history on the page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok Walter thank you for the understanding of the process. I'm in contact with several fans of both soccer clubs and I was trying to assist in getting the article created prior to the actual matches in July. I've edited articles before, but never have I created one from scratch like this one. I'll save the article template since it took so long to create, then I will attempt to post again if the current article eventually gets deleted. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolyfett (talk • contribs) 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry but this just isn't notable at this time. Carbrera (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Userfy/Draftify for the time being. This might be notable in the future, and the creator needs more time on it anyway. Not ready for the prime time. No such user (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Into whose user space should it be placed? Coolyfett? Other? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:39, 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 07:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generally with this rivalries a first name is proposed, but then the fanbases of the teams find something else completely. By July 2017 something else might be proposed, and it could be something else in 2020. Or by the time the match is whistled both teams are in the division cellar and this is airing only to diehards on Sun Sports so it won't matter what the name is. Make sure a rivalry is relevant before creating an article, lest we end up with embarrassments like the Civil ConFLiCT. Nate • (chatter) 20:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 05:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ysabel Birkbeck[edit]

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

The first reference is to a book review of a compiled diary, the second is to a blog, the third is to another blog (as near as I can tell), and the fourth is to a collections listing (in which the subject's name is mentioned and some of her photographs are held). None of these supports a notability claim for the subject herself, which would require non-trivial discussion in multiple reliable secondary sources. Having a [seemingly notable] mother with the exact same name makes this more complicated. KDS4444 (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rewrite into a book article. I think she is not notable, but her diaries may be. Google Books shows a dozen or more cites, plus a review in Marsali Taylor (20 October 2015). Footsteps In the Dew. Lulu.com. pp. 104–. ISBN 978-1-326-45392-3.. So we have two reviews, which is borderline "multiple". Perhaps someone could find one more decent source? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I concur with Piotrus; coverage of her papers seems and papers, in my opinion, lend her some notability. Also, there seems to be reliably sourced information about this individual beyond what is in the diary (depending on what you think of Parker Publishing). I think that lulu.com is a vanity press and often not considered a reliable publisher. The published version of her diary is published by this house, and coverage of her papers seems largely from before they were published as a diary, so I do not think the diary is notable itself as a published book, and I do not know if Footsteps in the Dew would count as a reliable source. I don't think an article called, the diary of Ysabel Birkbeck or the papers of Ysabel Birkbeck would make much sense, and the article should probably be of her with the bulk of the material being about her war experience based largely on her papers rather than being of her papers with a a small amount of material about her life coming from other sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note, her mother, who I think is even more suitable for inclusion as an article in Wikipedia, has a page with the same name but different capitalization, Ysabel birkbeck (and created at the same time by the same editor). So especially if the article is kept, this issues will need fixing. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The medical mission to Serbia was a notable (if obscure) aspect of WWI. The publication of her diary points to her notability. I agree the article on the other lady needs fixing. I would suggest renaming that to Ysabel Birkbeck (toymaker). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems some one has already done that: the hatnote needs fixing and the oddly capitalised redirect deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for much the same reasons as Peterkingiron. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is an article by a new editor. It is an excellent opportunity for everyone concerned to offer constructive support rather than threatening the article with deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; looks like the references are being improved already, so the objection about that aspect may no longer apply. - Penny Richards (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I saw five or six good mentions in Google books before I stopped counting. meets WP:GNG.198.58.158.1 (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and a gentle reminder to follow WP:BEFORE when nominating an article for deletion. A simple Google search finds plenty of sources demonstrating the subject's notability. Pburka (talk) 16:46, 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.