Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 26 November	28 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Joyous! | Talk 00:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh s. p. srivastava

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

This article is an autobiography, by a user whose edits are almost exclusively about himself. Although strongly discouraged, autobiography is not forbidden; but apparent use of Wikipedia for self-promotion makes us look hard at the evidence for notability, and I do not see it here. The article is neatly laid out, but the achievements listed are: director of two commercials; assistant director on two TV shows; music assistant on two movies; "executive producer" on one movie. "Executive producer" sounds grand, but the IMDb listing shows two executive producers, listed below the actual producer. The references are directory entries, with no substantial coverage, and searches do not find any. This is far short of the the notability standard of WP:FILMMAKER. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any reliable source about this person. Fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 03:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete-I follow a simple quote by DGG (talk · contribs) in these cases--Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted. This is the only way to discourage people from using the WP for advertising. If the subject is actually important, someone else will create an article. Rescuing it sends the message that if your write an unacceptable article about yourself, someone will very possibly fix it for you, and therefore you might as well try to advertise here.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. I haven't found any sources either, and this is clearly a promotional effort. --bonadea contributions talk 21:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete this article has some valid link about his work. so kindly consider it before deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofcoursecrazy (talk • contribs) 08:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete this article has some valid link about his work. so kindly consider it before deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshsrivastava.dir (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; in addition, the keep arguments by the two users above have nothing to do with any Wikipedia policy Spiderone 11:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Executive producer of an unreleased movie is getting too far. Since he made the article himself, and even voted keep in the AfD, I would suggest him to produce a movie, before creating wiki articles.PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 00:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin J. Mello

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I could not locate any reliable sources to support the claims made in the article, other than the one cited primary source: Music Media Solutions. To say the source provided is reliable is a stretch - Mello is listed as the VP and managing pattern of the company in the bio section. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, no sign of notability whatsoever. Speed deletion please! Scorpion293 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. I don't see how this musician passes as notable. I did a quick Google search and only found information about a (different) person who allegedly committed fraud. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, while watching this for several days now, I will note that this is literally an advertisement finished with a company website as a source, hence entire advertising and the history also emphasizes it, case closed as advertising. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 3 December 2016 (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 12:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shafer's Wager

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

Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources for verification and notability Meatsgains (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced the original blog post which contains Shafer's Wager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcs37 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Shafer per WP:CHEAP. The concept is extremely important yet just not notable. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: a suggestion to delete, and another to redirect. Still looking for consensus. Joyous! | Talk 00:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 00:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*~~Merge and redirect~~ into Michael Shafer as Berian suggests. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Michael Shafer is a college basketball coach, Michael Schäfer is a Danish soccer star and commentator, Michael Schaefer (producer) is a film producer, and Michael P. Schaefer was a Pennsylvania politician, now deceased. None of these appear to be the Michael Shafer who wrote the blog post. I can't find any information about the blogger at his website, so I can't be sure which of the many, many Michael Shafers on the internet might be this one, but I can find no indication that "Shafe's Blog" or this particular page have been the subject of coverage in independent reliable sources. If I have missed something I will certainly reconsider.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dang, I was badly mistaken. With no reasonable place to redirect, have to concur that the appropriate action is delete. Thanks for pointing that out. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm the Michael Shafer who wrote it, and I'm not the basketball coach. I codified the concept of Shafer's Wager years ago and I wanted to preserve it in Wikipedia, but apparently it's impossible to store information in Wikipedia unless you have multiple outside references. Do I need to get the New York Times to mention it? What does it take to create multiple reliable sources for something I came up with?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus cannot be determined after two relists. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 23:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abhoynagar

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

Not sure whether it is a city, town, village or some other geographical region. Couldn't find anything substantial other than postal zip code. May fail at WP:NGEO. Hitro talk 20:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - peripheral Google references do not suffice to show notability. WP is not intended to just list random name references.--Rpclod (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are non-peripheral reliable sources that show that this topic passes WP:GEOLAND, nothing like "random name references". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND as a "Populated, legally recognized place", it is Ward No. 7 of Agartala, a quick gsearch shows that it contains the Regional Institute of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology (could have its own wikiarticle?), Hindi Higher Secondary School, TRIPURA FOREST DEVELOPMENT & PLANTATION CORPORATION LIMITED - www.tripurainfo.com/Login/UpLoad/1548.pdf, btw here is a map showing it. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It exists and per WP:GEOLAND, it's notable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the article indicates what it is or why it is notable, much less that it is either populated or a legally recognized place.--Rpclod (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW close. A clear consensus for deletion is evident in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Power_Seven_Conferences

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

Uncited/misinformation, rampant vandalism, edit warring because of a non neutral party editing the uncited misinformation Encmetalhead (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why CSD the article then put it up for AfD this makes no sense. --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the (seemingly bias) editor kept deleting the tag so I wanted to make sure this article was properly vetted for possible deletion. Encmetalhead (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the CSD. Misinformation, vandalism, and edit warring are not good reasons to AfD pages, otherwise there would be no pages at Wikipedia. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also notice how they are trying to blank this discussion and canvassing for votes/support. Both against the rules. Encmetalhead (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought it up at WP:AIN. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, none found via Google search. This term seems to be WP:OR. I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but until then, the article should not be in WP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term does exist. I have found it used in a number of different sources, but I am having trouble finding any in depth coverage from reliable secondary sources. The lack of RS citations in the article is also troubling and suggests a good deal of WP:OR. At the moment the article appears to fail WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide these citations if you are able. If not, the article is likely to be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an essay and does not support neologisms.--Rpclod (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that at some time today, among the dozens of edits that I was disinclined to wade through, the opening words of this article were changed from "Power Seven" to "Power Eight". Could someone familiar with this topic area explain, without any editorialising, what is going on here? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It stems from the catholic 7 seperating from the Big East and leaving behind the all sports schools. They were eventually given the Big East name and the all sports schools became the AAC. If you know about the old BE you know how intense the rivalries were. That has carried on in a sense as it's now BE vs AAC. So it's most likely a few BE fans trying to place their bias spin on the landscape and a few AAC fans trying to say "we see you and respect you, but should be included as well." In the end both schools and the A10 (whom I believe is an innocent bystander in this incident) are technically high majors. Now if there was an article that laid out what each tier is, what makes each tier that tier, and what conferences are in which tier and was properly sourced that may be a good article but then you may have a battle each time a fan of a school sees it and doesn't like where their conference is placed. Encmetalhead (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying, but I was hoping for an explanation that could be understood by someone other than a diehard fan of American college basketball. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of popular couple hated each other. When popular couple broke up, friends split into two fractions and the fractions attacked one another. Encmetalhead (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article had citations to reliable sources, we would be able to learn what this is from those reliable sources. Please provide them if you are able. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:V and probably WP:GNG. This looks like a WP:OR essay and while I have found a few uses of the term, none come close to the kind of coverage needed to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, not in common use. Compare Power Five conferences for football, which is used regularly. There are a few scattered articles which do use "Power Seven" but they all post-date this article's creation which raises a potential WP:CIRCULAR issue. Mackensen (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that we can't even decide on the basis of reliable sources whether this is a "Power Seven" (as in the article title) a "Power Eight" (as in the article text) or a "Power Six" (as suggested on the talk page) means that we do not have the sources needed to write an article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the article content discusses "Power Eight", I have moved it to that title, which should not affect its deletion if that is the result of the AfD (simply delete and the redirect from "Power Seven"). I have no opinion regarding the nomination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful. You have moved the article from one neologism to another. That is not helpful. From WP:AFDEQ: While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. "No prohibition" is your loophole; go ahead and jump through it, as usual. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when the "eight" was inserted as part of an edit war, with the editor introducing that change being blocked. I would be in favor of moving this article back to Seven until the AfD is complete, and if rename is the consensus (which seems unlikely) then we do it. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One neologism is as good as another (if indeed they are neologisms), and the results of this AfD will apply to the article under whatever name it is titled. In the meantime, it is confusing to the reader to have an article under title X while the article discusses Y. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I move it backed and changed the Eights to Sevens, don't move it again. Encmetalhead (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I most probably won't, but not because of the ludicrous attempt of an editor with 971 edits over 9 years to pull rank. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism with no WP:RSs. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely does not satisfy WP:GNG even if some WP:RSs were to be found. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 19:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also this is getting into WP:SNOW territory, maybe it's time to close this one out. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2016 (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. Article completely fails to establish any notability, and no significant, independent coverage is evident in the sources. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Doumit

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

Non-notable actor, Fails GNG and NACTOR. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the actress fails GNG, but I'm not sure she fails NACTOR. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the guidelines for actors, there are too few roles and not enough are significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is a cast member on a current NBC television series, Timeless. See [1] and [2] for recent interviews with her. Her current IMDb StarMeter ranking is within the top 5,000 of all of the 7 million+ people listed in the database. I would give the subject the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as an acceptable compromise considering her career is not yet substantiated, only having the 1 major work, so this will suffice, considering IMDb is enough to gauge her works, but there's currently nothing for actual substantial notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan90, or at least redirect to Timeless (TV series) to keep a link. SST flyer 14:47, 19 December 2016 (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. Consensus to "KEEP," and nomination was withdrawn. Joyous! | Talk 00:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome (band)

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

Can't find anything that qualifies this for WP:BAND. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Really? A quick Google found all these: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. --Michig (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BAND. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 00:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Harris (radio personality)

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

No indication of notability fails WP:BIO JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little to no evidence of notability per WP:CREATIVE, and no good sourcing to support a WP:GNG claim; the two sources cited here both just namecheck his existence in the process of failing to be substantively about him. As always, every radio personality who exists is not automatically a valid article topic, if "he exists, and here's an article that happens to mention his name once to prove it" is the best you can actually do. Bearcat (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local radio personality, although I might be stretching the term to even call him that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as literally as trivial and unconvincing as it gets, especially the last paragraph which is so mindblowing as advertising, I had to question whether it was in fact part of the article. Simply advertising. SwisterTwister talk 03:28, 3 December 2016 (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 Skylight Group. czar 05:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Blumin

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

BLP article fails WP:GNG. Reads like an advert for an entrepreneur, uses bare URL's to link to trade mags and blogs, after 2 years of editing, no quality non trade references. Tenuous notability. Completely fails WP:BIO. Well written advertising article. Of the five references, two don't work, one is a blog, showing no clear ownership. Primary context is her and the Skylight Group, so no standalone existence outside of it. Previous Afd voted no consensus via two SPA accounts that came in, and have not edited since. scope_creep (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising with WP:NOT policy applying by that alone, and thus nothing to suggest tolerating it when it's such blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 11 December 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 00:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gibran Noorani

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

Only passing mentions, no significant coverage. Kleuske (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this article has been created for informational purpose please contest this deletion and keep it on wikipedia its a real person and kind of famous in Indian Film industry

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshayzine13 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Akshayzine13 (talk Removing Deletion warning from the Gibran Noorani and Considering its Wikipedia's decision anything comes out please mention on my Akshayzine13 (talk talk page of [:Gibran Noorani]] talk page —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. No WP:GNG criteria met. Seems like potential self-promotion.--Rpclod (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite the above assertion about the subject being "kind of famous", the tailored Wikiproject India search identifies no coverage about him. The sources in the article and available from a standard Google search are mainly the usual social media plus some listings as a dentist. No reliable 3rd party sources indicate notability whether by WP:CREATIVE or WP:BASIC criteria. AllyD (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any reliable source about this person. Fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 03:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not "a place for information". It is an American charity and an encyclopedia. It is not a free web host for aspiring wannabees. This guy is totally ordinary. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am only deleting the article originally listed in the AfD as there is consensus that it does not meet criteria for lists on Wikipedia. There seems to be a consensus that List of hotels in Lagos is a better-quality article, so for now, I'm leaving that one alone, with WP:NPASR in effect. Joyous! | Talk 12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Port Harcourt

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

Doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability with barely any list entries having their own articles (whose notability is also questionable). WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR Ajf773 (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. List of hotels in Lagos seems to be an appropriate navigational list since it has multiple bluelinked hotels with their own articles that suggest individual notability. At most, these could be merged back into List of hotels in Nigeria, but not deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am considering nominating that article for deletion as well, pending the outcome of these two articles AfD's. Ajf773 (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Ajf773: List of hotels in Lagos should be left out of this AFD discussion because all entries without articles have been removed from the list. It is now at par with other "hotels in city" related lists. Eruditescholar (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing notability for lists here. Explain to us how it passes WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LIST. Almost all of these would be red links. This is not a major tourist destination, nor would any business people stay in Port Harcourt, except for local interests or those in extraction industries. Just because Lagos is a major city for hotels does not infer that so is Port Harcourt. We are not a web host for the Nigerian hospitality industry. If necessary, redirect to Nigerian hotel advertising scam. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Bearian: Your view of seeing this article as a scam is ridiculous. WP:GOODFAITH should apply here. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Good faith applies if a good faith effort has been made. I don't see any effort to find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I just see walls of text. I've travelled to 20 countries, and stayed in dozens of hotels and hostels around the world. I'm on record for editing hundreds of articles about subjects and places the global south; just see my user pages. I can't assume good faith when I see a list that is such a mess and is littered with red links, about a city that is justifiably notorious for its Nigerian prince scams and street crime. Please, give me three good reasons to change my mind. To clarify, for the record, I would keep the list of hotels in Lagos. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR.Charles (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus to delete the Harcourt list, but Lagos? Sandstein 19:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of hotels in Port Harcourt per Bearian and Charlesdrakew.--Rpclod (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion regarding List of hotels in Lagos and agree that should be a separate AfD.--Rpclod (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Port Harcourt - per nom; the Lagos one probably needs to be done in a separate AfD to avoid confusion; they're two very different articles in terms of quality and notability claims Spiderone 19:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the confusion? Both articles are similar in nature and nominated for the exact same reasons.Ajf773 (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued as being navigational. I would personally say weak delete for Lagos as it's not inherently notable and I can't find any evidence of LISTN or GNG. It is, however, different to the Harcourt list because the Harcourt list only has one notable hotel whereas Lagos at least just lists notable hotels. Spiderone 19:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be done on two different templates as persons might want to vote keep for one and delete for the other Mahveotm (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Two templates are not required. These two were bundled into one AFD because they are both similar in purpose and nominated for the exact same reasons. Ajf773 (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vote to keep the article about Lagos and delete or improve tremendously the article about Port Harcourt.Mahveotm (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Brown (scrutineer)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "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 (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Mrluke485 with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). What can I say - two years has passed since the prod, the article still fails to indicate notability just like it did back then. And I still don't see any in-depth coverage, few passing mentions is all I am able to find, and that does not seem sufficient to warrant keeping this as an independent bio. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I removed the prod, because it was never explained why you wanted it deleted. This man was involved directly with the Eurovision Song Contest, the reference I provided was from a well insighted Eurovision book, surely that's enough evidence for this article to excist. I personally don't want most of these articles that play key involvements with the Eurovision Song Contest to go, it isn't fair. MrLuke485 (Talk), 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google results for this person are almost non existent, only relevant hits are this Wikipedia article and a couple of other sites that have basically copied this article, fails WP:GNG in my opinion Seasider91 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. Plenty of mentions in books and/or Eurovision links. Work at Eurovision is notable. The already existing source alone is establishing notaiblity. BabbaQ (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Work at Eurovision is notable. Seriously, this argument is getting old, and it is not supported by anyone except you and one or two Eurovision fans. How about you try to pass Wikipedia:Notability (Eurovision) by the community first, before repeating the same line time and again, given that there is certainly no consensus for it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why would a scrutineer be considered notable? One reference does not establish notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a question? Or a standpoint. Yes, one ref does establish notability if it is good, and it is. BabbaQ (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:Notability. Has not has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Subject is already mentioned in Eurovision Song Contest article. CBS527^Talk 21:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've been watching this and I will note there's still simply been nothing for an independent notable article, hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the sources seem to confirm that, yes, he did work on Eurovision. None of the sources I could find provide really in depth coverage required for WP:GNG. I don't have access to the source used in the article, but I find it doubtful that it would devote more than a page to the subject and that is not enough to provide depth of coverage. I am open to being proved wrong. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2016 (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 12:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Delivery

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

To state the obvious, the sources simply consist of trivial and unconvincing information, including noticeably from the company itself, which is clearly not an independent source, the history suggests itself it is in fact an advertisement, quite likely company-motivated, and my own searches unsurprisingly found nothing better. Next, it's unsurprising to see this was accepted in a time when no one would carefully examine and consider these controversial subjects and Drafts. Now we are, and with WP:SPAM and WP:NOT (policies), they can easily be removed, especially since we're not a random business listing and PR webhost, regardless of anything anyone could say otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The book source below provides independent, significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt, L.F.; Nel, D. (2001) South African Marketing Cases for Decision Makers. Juta. 978-0-7021-5552-9. pp. 101–109. (subscription required)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 00:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The SA sources are advertorials, the US ones mere notices. Being used as one of the many instances in a casebook does not show notability DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Ezeanubekwe

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

Non-notable sound engineer. Refs from LinkedIn and Facebook, but nothing that meets the notability criteria. Yintan 19:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MMall124 (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you choose to delete the article, please nominate file:Maurice kings.jpg in Commons for deletion and give there link to this AfD request. Taivorist (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is not yet notable. I believe he fails WP:ANYBIO. He has been nominated for several times to receive significant regional awards, but it is probably not enough yet for him to be considered notable. We do not know how close he came to win any of those awards. Furthermore, WP:BASIC is not being met. The photo at the Commons should be nominated for deletion too, if this article gets deleted. Ceosad (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2016 (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 01:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Fresh Onyenma

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

Non-notable studio assistant and script editor. Doesn't meet notability criteria. Yintan 18:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, plus all self sources, no third party coverage or notice. JamesG5 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you choose to delete the article, please nominate file:Kingsley Onyenma.jpg in Commons for deletion and link this AfD request. Taivorist (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlikely to meet WP:GNG, as there is no significant coverage. Fails both WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. The file at the Commons should be nominated for deletion if this article gets deleted. Ceosad (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur, there's no actual substance for notability here and that's exactly why it was PRODed to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 2 December 2016 (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. Sandstein 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daisey Bailey

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

No evidence of the type of sustained coverage that would meet the guidelines at WP:N; most of what is here and findable online is routine coverage, primarily a handful of similar obituaries and the odd local mention of her extreme age, but nothing to establish notability. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 20:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP , Daisy Bailey was an important Supercentenarian and one of the oldest people ever born in 1896, having her article is warranted. /Chimney148 — Chimney148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Is she was one of the oldest people ever born in 1896? In fact, Daisey Bailey was only 9th (or 10th) oldest known person ever who was born in 1896, behind Besse Cooper, Chiyono Hasegawa, Maria Gomes Valentim, Venere Pizzinato, Walter Breuning, Eugenie Blanchard, Eunice Sanborn, Florrie Baldwin. (and unverified case, Ida Stewart.)Inception2010 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Routine coverage. Three dead links to obituaries that look like they only repeat the basics (born, lived, had kids, died) doesn't make someone notable. Redirect to relevant list is fine also. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete WEAK delete. I don't know that she have enough notable for created the page. There is also a method of marge to List of supercentenarians from the United States#People. (Just as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbella Ewing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby Harris.) Inception2010 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established by old age nor how long a thing has existed.--Rpclod (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify what you mean, Rpclod? If I look at coverage regarding our current world's oldest person, I notice that in the last couple of months she was featured in many newspaper articles on a regular basis, and in more countries than just her native one. Moreover, reasons to feature her were myriad - just to mention a few: May^[1], June^[2], July^[3], and October^[4]. On top of that, googling her 117th birthday provides me with birthday articles from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, Ireland, Germany, Norway, France, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Romania, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Sweden... and that is just the first two pages of search results^[5]! In other words, how does "old age alone" NOT establish notability when in some cases - note the word 'some' - it clearly does? Surely, there must be some sort of undefined appeal in our world's oldest people that attracts interest from the general public and the media, be it our world's oldest secrets to a long life, or our own sheer disbelief at their age. Notice how Guinness, for instance, does consider the world's oldest person to be a recordholder (^[6] and ^[7]), thus showing there must be something notable about age. Fiskje88 (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize the references you list discuss someone other than the subject of this particular article?--Rpclod (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do, but your comment is a general comment ("notability is not established by old age") and thus does not restrict itself / refer solely to Mrs Bailey. Therefore, I still wonder if you could elaborate on your comment. Thank you. :) Fiskje88 (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing suggests that WP:ANYBIO criteria are met and hence no notability exists.--Rpclod (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon you are now talking about Mrs Bailey? Fiskje88 (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge with List of supercentenarians from the United States. Although Mrs Bailey's media coverage was mainly restricted to when she was alive and she has therefore seemingly disappeared from our collective memory (for some reason, recentism seems popular on Wikipedia), I do feel that she deserves a special mention in the list of American supercentenarians, seeing that she is still well within the top 100 oldest people of that country. Fiskje88 (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Classic WP:NOPAGE -- the usual "She credited her longevity to always praying, loving, forgiving, and eating vegetables". E Eng 04:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

What is the purpose of this list if the references relate to someone other than the subject of the AfD?--Rpclod (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2016 (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 01:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Evolved

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

Fails WP:NWEB. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no substantial hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Put another way, there isn't enough reliable, secondary source content to write a detailed and verifiable article on the topic. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 17:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References are two non-authoritative lists and several dead links.--Rpclod (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable gaming news site. Unless more secondary sources are added, there's no reason to believe that this subject is notable. Omega625 (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not appear to be notable enough for its own article as I couldn't find any articles about the site. However, I did find some sites referencing it like [11] [12] [13] [14] So the content on the site is/was probably reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 00:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Adventures of Donkey Ollie episodes

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

Non-notable television program. Main article deleted over a year ago. Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Donkey Ollie was indeed prodded. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- episode lists are dubious at the best of times. Having one for a non-notable TV show whose main article was deleted is completely inappropriate. Reyk _YO! 09:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 season and no references.--Rpclod (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the main article wasn't worth keeping, the episode list certainly isn't. ~ Eidako (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2016 (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 as per improvements made to the article. Bradv 01:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skipp Townsend

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

Biography of a living person, fails WP:BIO. No reliable sources given for verification. Apparently not eligible for BLPPROD as it has a link to his website. Bradv 19:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:V; an unreferenced essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notability appears to be there, although the page is obviously a PROMO by a purpose-created SPA. Here [15] is a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview from which some bio details can be sources (text plus video as sources). Ditto for this [16] Voice of America story (different story, different year). More detail from The Daily Beast [17] again, different context, different year. Several pages of similar popped up on a simple gNews search. continuing over several years, so, not W:P1E. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable per several established sources and GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- none of the sources presented have been added to the article, so I cannot vote "keep" just yet. WP:TNT still applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - because I always enjoy K.e.coffman's comments and have been more of a deletionist lately, I took the challenge and modified the article. Because I have now biased myself, I will defer from !voting. Regardless, I think this was a good nomination by Bradv and hope this moves the article in the right direction.--Rpclod (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvements; an acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 00:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catia Ojeda

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

After the PROD was removed, I checked the sources and none of them actually support it. Fails NACTOR and GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON Supporting role in the Legends of the Hidden Temple TV movie, and a somewhat supporting cast role as the main character's mom for Just Add Magic which is minor notable. 101 Dalmatians is promising since it's a starring role as Pongo's wife. Still waiting for another lead role. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON and AngusWOOF's comment above. A promising start and this could be appropriate in the future, but just not right now. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 00:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swan 70

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

Fails WP:GNG. Searches come up with nothing, there aren't any reliable sources covering this. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—UY Scuti ^Talk 16:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an infobox, corporate link, and purported reference in one book does not show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am concerned about the factual accuracy of this. I would say do a TNT delete here and let someone else who is interested start it again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been advanced by the nominator. Topic notability is not based upon the presence of other Wikipedia articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Army installations in Italy

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG due to adequate List of United States military bases. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the adequacy of another article has to do with the question of whether this topic passes WP:GNG. There are loads of sources that cover these as a set, for example a 20-page chapter in ISBN 9780198291329, so that guideline is easily met. That still leaves the question of whether it is better to organise our content as one all-encompassing list or separate country lists, but that's nothing to do with the general notability guideline. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2016 (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 22:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanah Runcuk

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

Not notable. Article creator is WP:SPA. Citobun (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be notable, but it being this editor's first contribution to Wikipedia is not a reason for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The artwork isn't independently notable. I have a left a welcome template on the author's talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Barely any input, hopefully another week will help build a more obvious consensus. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin I suggest either a relist or a WP:SOFTDELETE if there is no input. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's now sufficient consensus, the information itself is bare and nothing lends actual substance, apart from the few bits of information which still amount to no needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like an interesting topic, so I put some effort into searching for sources. Alas, could not find any. There's a version of this on id, where it may be more appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BMP VSTOL UAV

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

Non-notable product. No third-party references are given; none are apparent in searching that I've done. Mikeblas (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite what some think, not all cars, of vehicles in general, are notable. This fails WP:GNG as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, this is simply a sales listing at this time, and there's certainly nothing to suggest its own article, hence deletion. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 5 December 2016 (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. Merging all related articles into one can be explored further. Sandstein 08:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha P-115

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

Source searches are providing no significant coverage to qualify an article; does not meet WP:GNG. Sources used in the article are not reliable or independent per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defense against deletion

I don't know how to dispute this accurately, so I'll copy and paste the response on the talk page here. Might do some good.

There are similar articles for other specific Yamaha products, some exist without a single citation. Yes, some citations here are not independent, so I'll go ahead and change them. I'd prefer a friendly notification next time instead of an outright request for deletion. I made this page a day ago, please give me more than 24 hours to finish it up. If you still don't think it meets the standards of the dozens of other similar-length Yamaha product pages, some of which include not a single citation (independent or not) then go ahead and delete this one.

If this page should be deleted, I argue all Yamaha product pages in this same category should be requested for deletion. Yet they're not, so why is this one under scrutiny? Semmendinger (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a new article called "Yamaha P-Series" with the others: Yamaha P-85, Yamaha P-115, Yamaha P-120, Yamaha P-250. It's a reasonably long-running series of professional products which are independently reviewed, but on its own it's not notable. It doesn't have the history to merit individual articles. Compare to the Roland MC-series, for context. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an idea that would work. I do not know how to merge them specifically but would be willing to help in shaping the page. I agree that the other pages are perhaps not the most informative on their own. Semmendinger (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references not affiliated with Yamaha, hoping to bring less bias to the article. I've looked into the idea of a merge as well, and while their names share the symbol "P" not all "P-xxx" instruments Yamaha makes are of the Portable Piano line. Calling it P series might confuse it with other of their portable series' so I would think it's best to keep them separate. I'll continue to do my research about this article to get it removed from AfD. I find it interesting still that this article is nominated for deletion while the others are not. Semmendinger (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2016 (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. I've decided to close this as no consensus because there have been two re-lists and it has been at AfD for well over a month now. There is no general consensus among the participants and therefore, I'm closing this because a third re-list would be unlikely to benefit the debate. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 12:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aladin & Alakadam

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

Per source searches, this new Indonesian soap opera does not meet WP:GNG at this time because it has received inadequate coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep national show, "Aladin & Alakadam" = 6110 Ghits, "Aladin dan Alakadam" = 19300 Ghits, many of them news articles, I'm seeing no reason to delete.

5630 news sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Timmyshin (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:GOOGLEHITS do not confer with notability on Wikipedia. For example, I can type in "sdfgsd", which means nothing, and Google returns around 35,200 Google hits. Could you provide links to actual news articles or other coverage published by reliable sources about the topic? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Timmyshin (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The series seems to have enough coverage, as provided above. None of that is in English, but that is not required by WP:GNG. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see no references that meet WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 23:19, 11 December 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 00:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Big Sky Conference Men's Basketball Tournament

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

Finding zero coverage in reliable sources; does not meet WP:N at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Seriously? Conference basketball tournaments in Division I receive significant coverage and are broadcast in whole or in part on national TV. The winner gets a berth in the NCAA Tournament, which attracts enormous coverage throughout the country and world. Every men's Division I basketball conference tournament going back as long as I can remember has had an article, and deservedly so. Clearly notable. In the unlikely event consensus is that this for whatever reason isn't notable, it should be redirected to Big Sky Conference Men's Basketball Tournament rather than deleted, as WP:NSEASONS says that is preferable in such a case. Smartyllama (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON – It is so ridiculous to repeatedly come across articles about events which haven't happened and are therefore completely lacking in substance. Indiscriminately slapping together content with happenstance sources is one thing. Pushing what's supposed to be an encyclopedia further in the direction of yet another current events site and/or news site is another. Acting as if there's no obligation to create articles about past events where notability and reliable sourcing is well established only makes things worse. What part of "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" requires further debate? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- RadioKAOS - At the very least, the page should be redirected to Big Sky Conference Men's Basketball Tournament. First of all, that's what WP:NSEASONS says we should do when the individual seasons aren't notable, and second of all, this will clearly be notable eventually even if it isn't now, and preserving the edit history will be useful. Smartyllama (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are hundreds of articles of precedent for this. Also, it's already notable, but if it wasn't it would become notable in about two months. The inevitability of its notability is enough for me. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since there are many other conference tournament articles already created, I don't see why this one should be deleted. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that the 2016–17 college basketball season is well under way, conference tournaments for this season should already be notable. — Dale Arnett (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jrcla2 and other above keeps. 2604:2000:E016:A700:BCF9:21E6:5705:D71E (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2016 (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 13:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guanábanas Collection

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

Following the deletion of Los Reyes de Pichaera at AfD, I am nominating the rest of this group's albums for deletion as well, as none of them appear to pass WP:NALBUM, and there is a total lack of sources online. I am considering nominating the article for the group itself as well. Richard3120 (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as stated above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of media coverage. Albums have not charted anywhere. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage of any of the albums. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No significant coverage for any of these albums, and I'm not even sure if the band itself passes notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Userfication should be requested at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Toys (film)

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

Presently, this film may fail at WP:NFILM. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Considering WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON, this article should be deleted. Hitro talk 11:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. I can't really find much out there about this film aside from what's already in the article and what's in the article isn't enough to satisfy NFF at this point in time. I have no objection to a userfication, although I would prefer that if it was the original article creator, that they have someone to look over the article before it gets moved to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:54, 27 November 2016 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forestway Shopping Centre

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

fails WP:GNG. At one floor and 50 shops this is a small shopping centre with very routine coverage LibStar (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:GNG as per nomination and created by the same user who has created several other articles for similar NSW shopping centres (which have all been subjected to deletion). Ajf773 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BEFORE C2 states, "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." Unscintillating (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The article was created at 8:30am and was nominated at 11am ... All on the same day!, Editors are expected to leave newly created articles for roughly a week before nominating - Nominating 3 hours after creation is just bad faith, Anywho like above this should be allowed to be improved and sourced accordingly. –Davey2010^Talk 17:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the article creator has had over 7 days to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replies inregards to my speedy keep

You may want to read WP:Potential, not just current state - there is no timelimit for articles, I've asked the editor if they'd work on it. –Davey2010^Talk 22:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

certainly the best way you or others could show keep is a demonstration of sources. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This editor hasn't stated a "keep" so your comment is a non sequitur. I dont' see any evidence of WP:BEFORE D1 in the nomination. Is there some reason that you haven't prepared the community for a deletion discussion? Unscintillating (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is there a reason you constantly like to demand others to do things your way in WP? LibStar (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating isn't demanding anything ... He's asking a perfectly reasonable question which so far you've answered inadequately. –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in my nomination I said there is routine coverage, and your gnews and gbooks search confirms. my nomination stands. Unscintillating has had a habit of demanding in AfDs because he will do anything to get a keep rather than arguing on actually meeting WP:N. here's another example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sturt Mall (3rd nomination). LibStar (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the sources - It's about you nominating an article within 3 hours of it being created but anyway there's atleast 10 that are usable on Google News and 9 on Google Books. –Davey2010^Talk 23:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call that 10 usable sources. the shopping centre being sold or bought or small one line mentions are rather routine. there's only at least 1 I see as usable. and I would say none of the gbooks hits counts as indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping centres don't get much in terms of sources so it's a case of make the best of what we have, I would suggest withdrawing and adding these sources to the article. –Davey2010^Talk 23:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you miss my point, these sources do not establish notability. and the lack of sources proves it. I'm not withdrawing my nomination. the demands continue...LibStar (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping centres don't get much in terms of sources . notable ones do. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010. Sorry but still not convinced that a Speedy Keep is valid for this AFD, given that it has been open for long enough without any effort to provide notability from neither the creator nor anybody else.Ajf773 (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided sources however not all may be brilliant - Notabilty is there an keeping the article would mean the creator can carry on sourcing and perhaps find stuff we cannot. –Davey2010^Talk 12:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC),[reply]

none of these facts establish notability The shopping centre was owned by Arndale Property and was part of the chain. It has over 50 stores and was sold to an American company Invesco. There is no significant indepth third party coverage of this centre. It therefore fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question has not been touched since creation and that was eight days ago. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment read WP:SK , none of the speedy keep scenarios are applicable. Therefore speedy keep is invalid here. LibStar (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(very) weak keep without prejudice to renomination - Story in the local rag at least hints at GNG. Not quite enough on its own (needs multiple independent), but it at least verifies the basic facts and it strikes me as likely that there would be additional sources available. Tag for refimprove and wait - if not improved in (say) 1 month then by all means renominate. COMMENT - "Speedy keep" is, in this context, only intended for the most blatantly bad-faith, disruptive nominations - this is not an example. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

replies

Nominating within 3 hours is enough for a speedy keep and AFDs like this have been speedy kept before, –Davey2010^Talk 12:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if nominating within 3 hours constituted blatant bad faith (which it doesn't), the subsequent good-faith contributions to the AfD by other editors disallow a speedy-keep close.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yeti. Ironically the time spent by others arguing for a speedy keep (when it doesn't apply in any case) could be spent actually finding significant indepth coverage... makes you wonder if this coverage actually exists. Hence my nomination stands. LibStar (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating an article within 3 hours is bad faith, Editors contributing to the article doesn't automatically make ones Keep void,

I've found sources which are more than sufficient for this shopping centre - As I said hopping centres don't get much coverage so I would suggest you close this, add the sources and stop wasting everyones time, Might I suggest infuture you nominate articles a week after creation not 3 hours ?, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 12:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is stopping you from improving the page yourself? I see this far too often on AFDs where users argue the case for keeping articles by finding any old fluff from a Google search and claiming it as passing notability - yet don't bother actually applying it to the article in question. To pass WP:GNG articles need evidence of it. As of the morning of Nov 29 (here in my part of the world), the only other edit - other than articles initial creation - is the AFD template. Ajf773 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

doing a cursory gnews and gbooks search and suddenly declaring it's notable and the time spent arguing speedy keep instead of performing a deeper search to establish a keep case says it all. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the sources do not establish notability. Routine coverage and in particular the gbooks are mostly 1 line mentions. Keep making demands... keep arguing speedy keep. Your words will not change this or future nomination. Keep making demands... LibStar (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there was even an attempt to lower the bar of notability just so this article can pass Shopping centres don't get much in terms of sources so it's a case of make the best of what we have. Classic. LibStar (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (I've collapsed the above as it all became waay too much here) - Well whilst we were all arguing over my glorious Speedy Keep !vote .... the creator hasn't touched the damn article at all, Although I did state there's no timelimit it doesn't mean the creator gets to bugger off and leave it ..... The whole point of my !vote was so that the editor could hurry up and source it but instead they've done nothing, Unfortunately my crappy laptop cannot operate 2 tabs without everything crashing so unfortuntely I can't check the sources but anywy as per LibStar & Ajf773 we may aswell get rid, Ah well remind me never to try & save an article again!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've collapsed my weak keep !vote up there. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops my apologies, I've hopefully corrected it now. –Davey2010^Talk 13:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ - I have found the source and will keep checking of more sources, it is notable as it is in the busy suburb of Frenchs Forest. --BugMenn (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not yet notable, like most small shopping centers. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ It is notable as it is in the busy suburb of Frenchs Forest and I have found the sources. --BugMenn (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot !vote 3 times. The coverage is routine and being in a busy suburb is not a criterion. Whatever you define busy as. LibStar (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur this is trivial and unconvincing with no substance, so WP:NOT clearly applies. SwisterTwister talk 15:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shopping centers are not inherently notable and this one receives no coverage other that routine confirmations that it exists. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2016 (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. Uncontested. Sandstein 15:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Wizards

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

Cannot find any sources that prove this show was ever broadcast on TV. Does not meet notability requirements for Media and Music Rogermx (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:08, 15 December 2016 (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 Sky Sports. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Brooks

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

fails WP:CREATIVE as a journalist. Almost all the sources i found were from her employer sky sports and the coverage is very limited where she is the subject of coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable TV journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into Sky Sports. Other commentators and journalists are variously referred to throughout the article. Not sufficient notability for separate article. Aoziwe (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 12 December 2016 (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. Sandstein 14:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welkom (disambiguation)

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

The only real link on the page is the link to the city Welkom in South Africa. The claim that Welkom "refers most commonly to" the Flo Rida song is utter nonsense: 1) The song in question is titled "My house", while "Welcome to my house" is the first line of the lyrics. Certainly not written as "Welkom". 2) Neither "welkom" nor "welcome" is mentioned in the target article "My house (Flo Rida song)"; the same goes for the article page of the album "My house (EP)". 3) The phrase "Welkom to my house" has an amazing 21 hits in Google. T*U (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no ambiguity to disambiguate with this word. Welcome is already a disambiguation page on its own right. Not seeing a need for this page. Joyous! | Talk 15:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep HiT*U. I just wanted let you know that at least in my country of Canada and in the USA when you search Welkom on Google Canada/USA and Youtube Canada/USA/UK the first thing that comes up is the Flo Rida song. That is unlikely to change as the song is now 2 years old. I think before you nominate Welkom (disambiguation) for deletion and say that Welkom to my house is more notable than Welkom, South Africa, you should go on Google Canada, Google USA, YouTube Canada, YouTube USA, and YouTube UK and notice that the Flo Rida song is the dominant Welkom search. User:Red Icarus of Jakarta (User talk:Red Icarus of Jakarta) 28 November 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Icarus of Jakarta: YouTube can obviously not be used to define a WP:Primarytopic. Neither can a Google search alone, but it would be of interest to see how you manage to get the search result you claim. Could you please provide a link to the Google search result you describe? --T*U (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FloRida song is not primary topic - only released last year and will quickly drop down Google rankings (see WP:RECENT). We have to think long-term and in 50 years the city will still be there but the song will be long-forgotten - it's not a classic. The other issue is that Welkom to my house is a bad redirect - that isn't the title and isn't mentioned in article. Google.co.uk came up almost exclusively about the city, only mentions of FloRida song were on song lyrics pages which always have errors, and this was with Googling the full phrase 'Welkom to my house'. There were also more song lyric pages with 'Welcome' rather than 'Welkom'. It's not even a partial match, which we don't list on dabs anyway (see WP:PTM.) Dabfix suggested adding Welkom, Northern Cape so I have. Not convinced it will ever merit an article though and probably shouldn't be redlinked, just added per MOS:DABMENTION, unless farmstead in South Africa could mean village? Even so, I couldn't find good sources and it certainly wouldn't be as notable as the city. It seems to be a 'farmstead' of 381 people ([23] was the best source I could get). Anyway, that could be dealt with via a hatnote. The line about what it means in other languages should be deleted. Boleyn (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Leaving aside the link to the primary topic and the unsettled matter with the song, there are entries for the other settlement (a farmstead?), a relevant wiktionary link and a "see also" entry for the similarly spelt Welcome. Although these three links could fit in a hatnote at Welkom (and hence render the dab page redundant), they're all quite peripheral and unlikely to be anything but clutter for the vast majority of readers of that article, so I'd rather keep them out of there and in the separate dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The farmstead is not likely to ever have an article, the song lyric is misspelled, and the only other article titles with "Welkom" in them are a school and a stadium in the city. This page is not worth keeping. — Gorthian (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the PTM issue for the song and per WP:NOTDIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:14, 5 December 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 00:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minto Recreation Complex

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

Delete. Article about a municipal recreation complex, with some advertorial overtones ("much to the residents delight") and referenced only to its location on Google Maps and a press release on the city's website. As always, every piece of municipal infrastructure that exists at all is not automatically a valid article topic -- it must be reliably sourceable as notable for some substantive reason before an article on here becomes appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per nom. This fails to meet WP:GNG in any way. Imzadi 1979 → 04:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. google maps doesn't establish notability. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom and others above. MB 18:00, 27 November 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 00:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra de Helen

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Although this is written differently enough from the first version to not qualify for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, it still isn't referenced any better -- right across the board, the referencing here is entirely to primary sources and blog posts, still with no evidence whatsoever of the reliable source coverage that it takes to get over WP:AUTHOR. As always, a writer is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists, if you have to lean on invalid sourcing to support it -- she must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable American writer with sources not passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:10, 27 November 2016 (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. As mentioned below, a redirect would make sense if there was a title, not for "untitled" —SpacemanSpiff 11:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Pawan Kalyan-Trivikram Srinivas Film

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

Purely promotional. Makes no credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This 'November 5' dated source says, the production has begun. Whereas, this recent source says the regular shoot will begun later this month. And, this old source reports of shooting happening only in december. Hence, keeping in mind of WP:NFF, the page shall be redirected to Trivikram Srinivas, until further confirmation from multiple secondary sources. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 02:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Chetan aditya blanked the page and performed page move and renamed the page as Hello hi. I have restored the content but cannot perform the page-move to the original page-name. Can an admin look into this? Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BU Rob13. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFF. I do not see point in making an untitled a redirect; only if it was a confirmed title, I could agree for that. Anup [Talk] 04:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:08, 27 November 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 12:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ventom International Network

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

Does not pass the notability guidelines for WP:COMPANY due to lack of coverage in reliable independent sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely trivial from a place where we've come to expect nothing but literally advertising, so that's not hopeful for anything here at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- strictly WP:PROMO on an unremarkable business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2016 (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. Sandstein 06:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Sparxxx

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Only actual claim of notability is for her "world record", but even the article subject now acknowledges that was a hoax. (http://www.letagparfait.com/en/2013/06/19/lisa-sparks-the-tube-sites-have-now-killed-porn/) Fails the GNG for lack of independent reliable sourcing; what's out there is generally kayfabe or promotional fiction. Unlike other porn performers involved in similar hoaxes (e.g., Jasmin St. Claire), this article subject appears to have made no non-trivial impact outside her own promotional output. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOTE: The article under consideration here has been pretty heavily edited in recent days. The subject here has "made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre", namely gang bang pornography (which unfortunately was almost recently gutted by the initiator of this AfD here), and/or basically passes GNG by being featured multiple times in mainstream media, namely the books Plays Well in Groups: A Journey Through the World of Group Sex & Chuck Palahniuk, Parodist: Postmodern Irony in Six Transgressive Novels and the European magazine CultureKiosque (as currently cited in the article). Guy1890 (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perpetrating a hoax/fraud is not a "unique contribution" of any value, even if a handful of "mainstream" sources were at some point taken in by the hoax. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Except it's not a "hoax" AND she's starred in numerous mainstream films, which makes her notable.Holanthony (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the subject acknowledges that the "record" is a sham, whether we term it a hoax, a fraud, a canard, a fake, or whatever else, it doesn't matter. The claim on which her supposed notability rests just isn't so. And small parts in nonnotable films don't amount to "starring in numerous mainstream films", either. It's hard to see how a competent editor could advance such arguments in good faith. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now you're assuming facts not in evidence. She has NOT denied anything in the article (a refusal to confirm is NOT tantamount to denial). Moreover, she still claims a record of 919 different insertions in public. Whether they be from 919 different men or fewer is inconsequential, it is is a notable record that she still undeniably was the first person to achieve. Furthermore, another valid question is how much credibility one should put into a source that is written by a guy who styles himself "Heterogeneous onanist in the service of those who see beyond the weakness of the flesh."? Holanthony (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the subject of this Wikipedia article said when asked in an interview (which has already been added to this article here) about the event in question: "You still hold the world record for the biggest gang bang ever, it was back in 2004. I’ve seen this record being questioned on some websites by people arguing that you did not actually fucked with 900+ different guys. What would you answer them? I have never said that it was 919 different guys I said it was 919 different insertions. That is what the record is for"

This was not a "hoax/fraud", "sham", "canard", or "a fake"...it happened, is described accurately in the article under consideration here, and has been noted by several mainstream sources. The fact that one doesn't like the subject and/or has gutted the Wikipedia article on the subject of the event without any meaningful discussion is irrelevant here at AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are listed sources that are more recent than the article by the "Heterogeneous onanist" that still list it as a "record". Thus, we have sources that are not only reliable, but also contemporary and up-to-date. Given these circumstances, I can only reiterate my argument to keep the article. Holanthony (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Guy1890. The article is now edited in such a way that it contains RS and conforms to the notability criteria.Holanthony (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the subject does not demonstrate sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG and build an NPOV article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer. the article lacks good quality sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our core content policy Verifiability requires that we "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The sources in the article fail that standard, and I have not been able to find better sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
' How do you say that? The article contains numerous sources from well-reputable publishers. Holanthony (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respected by whom? In my judgment, the sources are crappy. The Chuck Palahniuk source, for example, discusses a different porn actor and mentions Sparks only in passing. It is not significant coverage and is therefore worthless for establishing notability. Feel free to take any of the other sources to the Reliable sources noticeboard, where I predict that consensus will be that the sources are not reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Respected" in that McFarland & Co. is a well-renowned publishing house with a good track record. But if that isn't enough, you also have the Frank source, also from a reputable publishing house, and the interview with Roger T. Pipe (who is a well-known authority in the industry). There are of course plenty more. So riddle me this, why are you willing to accept an article written by someone styling themselves as a "Heterogeneous onanist in the service of those who see beyond the weakness of the flesh" as a more "reliable source" rather than any other one of the aforementioned, reputable sources? I am really at a loss! Holanthony (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are poor (press releases, a trivial mention in a book about literary criticism) to unreliable (the IMDB, which is user-generated). I was still leaning toward keeping it because of the world record, but HW raises credible concerns about that. If better sources appear, we can recreate the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ok, I have now added several new RS. Perhaps you feel inclined to change your vote now? Besides, the point HW raised has been debunked for the following reasons 1) The source he uses is questionable (I mean, is a source from someone who presents himself to be a "Heterogeneous onanist in the service of those who see beyond the weakness of the flesh" more reliable than ALL of the other RS from reputable publishers?) 2) Sparxx does not deny anything. HW is drawing a conclusion, which in itself is WP:OR and forbidden by Wikirules and should be discounted on that account alone. 3) Sparxxx does admit to 919 different insertions, which is in itself a record whther it be by 919 different men or fewer, and thus notable in itself. Holanthony (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two book citations you added appear to be passing mentions. The Daily Star cite comes from one of Britain's most disreputable tabloids. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Gene93k. The Basket Sessions source only says she likes the Lakers, and the books look like a series of trivial mentions. For example, Usefully Useless contains a grand total of one sentence about her. This, to my mind, fails WP:SIGCOV, which uses a similar example to explain why Bill Clinton's high school band is not notable. The sheer number of sources indicates some degree of fame, but Wikipedia's idiosyncratic guidelines require in-depth coverage, not fame. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The example of Bill Clinton's band makes a point that it relies on ONE source mentioning it in passing, but here we are talking about several sources reporting on the same matter, which means it is widely reported (and there were fare than just two books by the way). You're wrong about the Basket Sessions source, as it CLEARLY mentioned the 919 insertions (this is not really not difficult to miss!). Moreover, the sources that have reported on this feat have often done so in dedicated sections/paragraphs, which also means it is more than than just a passing reference to something else. Not sure what more you are asking for the sources on the matter to report? They state that she has performed the deed and that it was a unique feat for its time and considered a record. Do you want them to write elaborate details of how she laid down on the mattress, how she unbuttoned her jeans, how she pulled her panties off, how tender she was afterwards, how many times she stopped for bathroom breaks etc.? It doesn't seem quite relevant. The passage is fully and adequately sourced for what it states as per WP:RS, because I haven't heard anyone dispute the validity of any of these source (with the possible exception of Daily Star, but that still passes RS as, whether you personally love it or hate it, it is an established medium). Holanthony (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you've disputed the accuracy of the Basket Sessions source here yourself. If you had actually read that source carefully, you would have seen that it simply repeats (with credit) statements from letagparfait.com. letagparfait.com is, of course, the source I cite in my nomination, which you describe below as a dodgy article written by a dodgy anonymous author using a dodgy pen name on an even dodgier website. Apparently it's unreliable when I cite statements attributed to, but not when you do? That shows how far removed from rationality your sourcing arguments are. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop embarrassing yourself. letagparfait is still a dubious source, but Basket sessions is bona fide. The fact that they make reference to to a questionable source does not discount its credibility, or maybe you believe the whole deal about pizzagate was for real too? Holanthony (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that a source is reliable just because it is an "established medium" is bizarre and without merit. Passing mentions in mediocre sources do not create notability, and "world's records" cited so dubiously are unworthy of inclusion into this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you fail to answer the question, why do you consider a "passing mention" in a dodgy article written by a dodgy anonymous author using a dodgy pen name on an even dodgier website to be a more reliable source than ANY of the other sources listed which have credited authors, editorial control and are published by reputable companies? Furthermore, I think we have well-established by now that Sparxxx has been addressed in these sources in more than a mere "passing reference". A "Passing reference" suggests it is mentioned as a sub-clause in a sentence that refers to something else. It is no in either of the sources cited, as they reference her in separate, dedicated sections and/or paragraphs. Holanthony (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I considered that source reliable, and I have maintained that none of the sources are sufficient to establish notability. Accordingly, you are debating a straw man. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, if you don't consider that source reliable, then you can't dispute the claim of a world record, which is what the original poster did (and which serves as the raison d'etre for this article even being up on afd in the first place). Second of all, why then isn't a world record in the greatest number of insertions/partners in one day a notable feat? It has been widely reported for many years in different sources in more than mere "passing references". Holanthony (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, since you seem not to have understood the first time I said it, I do not consider any of the sources in this article reliable enough or sufficient for establishing notability. With regards to any claim of a "world's record" in any area of human endeavor, we need an impeccably reliable source with a reputation for authenticating such records, for example Guinness World Records. What we have here are credulous passing mentions of a publicity stunt. To repeat, the sources in support of this claim are crap. If you disagree, please go to the Reliable sources noticeboard for a consensus judgement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 11 December 2016 (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. MER-C 04:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Root info solutions

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

Companies need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. In this case, it is missing reliable independent sources which talk about the company in detail. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Kleuske (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The main article text and references establish only that this is a registered company going about its business, with no claim of notability. Nor are my own searches finding anything to establish WP:CORPDEPTH. (The Root_info_solutions#Complaints section is sourced only to forum posting allegations. I have left it in place for the time being, though in my opinion it contributes nothing to establishing notability; if the article did survive this AfD, that section should be removed as unreliably-sourced.) AllyD (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepGupta Dindayal (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC): It's neutral, non-promotional; reference sources are reliable independent, not based on any self published work. The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_Automation also talks about Root info solutions. Gupta Dindayal (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection with User:Archana Gupta247? Marvellous Spider-Man 14:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepGupta Dindayal (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC): I don't know who wrote this article? But I think this article is about one month old, If I'm not wrong. At least 1000+ moderator on Wikipedia, nobody taken any action but suddenly why? I don't know.[reply]

I'm agree with !--(User talk:Gupta Dindayal) Template:Unsigned -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saroj Naagar (talk • contribs) 09:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These two editors are showing WP:DUCK behaviour. Marvellous Spider-Man 03:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My sincere apologies User:Marvellous Spider-Man for anything that made you draw this conclusion; but let's stay up to the spirit of Wikipedia, doing what's desired.Gupta Dindayal (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion was regarding the article, not for or against any individual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saroj Naagar (talk • contribs) 09:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Routine sources are insufficient. Nothing better found. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2016 (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. Consensus moved toward "keep" upon drastic editing of the article. Joyous! | Talk 00:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star of the West (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary page. PatGallacher (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is unnecessary since we only have 2 pages and the Bahai magazine is now a hatnote on the page about the steamship, the primary meaning. I proposed this for speedy deletion under criterion G6, but the admin. disagreed. I suspect one of us may be misunderstanding G6, but I have taken it to AFD. PatGallacher (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only other SotW item I could find was this milling company that has been around a long time but I don't believe has the notability to be its own article. [24] If someone disagrees, please chime in. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:2DABS. Proddable. Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PatGallacher, WP:G6 would have been applicable if the dab page contained only a single link to an article. – Uanfala (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded it now. With such a title I imagine it's likely that more entries are added in the future. – Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't know that. We can re-create this article should the need arise. PatGallacher (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Мандичка, Boleyn, do you think the newly expanded dab page can be kept? – Uanfala (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uanfala, yoy've done an amazing job, I'm embarrassed I didn't find some of those. Now has many valid entries; no longer any grounds for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uanfala's expansion! Thank you. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:12, 30 November 2016 (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. Sandstein 20:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akhdut

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

The article about this organization would appear to me to fail the tests for inclusion as a Wikipedia article.
First of all, it does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While there are mentions of this organization in reliable sources - The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz - they appear to be only reportage of Anarchist groups and movements in Israel, without any indication that that this particular organization was significant among them.
I also note that the organization's website is self-published via the WordPress blogging software. Shirt58 (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At present, Akhdut is the only anarchist organisation in Israel-palestain; that alone is sufficiant to grant it significance. Indeed, there are more anarchist groups and affenity groups in Israel, but not organisations. In Israel 2016, there was only one may day march, which was organised by Ahdut. Note that Akhdut's website moved to a new location. אילון אבנרי (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not enough, actually. WP:RS discussion of an organizaiton is required.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Frankly uncertain~~ This is a new article on a fringe organization with a tiny amount of coverage in RS that appear to be driven by the group's novelty and association with violent protests. [25] Here the Jerusalem Post describes the organization as one of 3 Anarcho Communist organizations in Israel, with a total membership numbering somewhat more than the 300 estimated by other observers. If this is kept, I think the better solution would be to redirect and repurpose to something like Anarchist communism in Israel. Anarcho-Communists being, after all, known for the regular shifting of alliances and creation of new Anarcho-Communist splinter groups.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing iVote to delete as my renewed search has produces nothing more on this tiny, finge movement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable yet by itself with no significant coverage. I have no prejudice to create a redirect to Anarchism in Israel if someone wishes to enlarge that article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Being BOLD and closing as Speedy Keep - Consensus for schools is that one source has to be provided to confirm the school exists, Currently there is 3 all of which confirms the schools existence so to save a week of speedy keeps I'm closing a speedy keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul Higher Secondary School, Indore

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG — MBlaze Lightning ^T 12:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our usual practice is to keep articles on verifiable high/secondary schools. Is there any reason why this should be an exception? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2016 (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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Silence Show

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

This article appears to fail Notability WP:Albums. No published coverage other than download sites, no nominated awards nor ratings on music charts. Article has no references (tag added 2008). Album already mentioned in artist's article. CBS527^Talk 17:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 27 November 2016 (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. MER-C 04:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

House of Fatty Koo

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

The group Fatty Koo was not deemed notable in an Afd for lack of coverage. Their album is also unnotable for the same reason. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article should have been deleted when the band was deemed non-notable. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2016 (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. Sandstein 14:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Underground

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability. Virtually all of the sourcing is to the site itself. What little sourcing that is considered a RS, discusses DU with respect to a lawsuit brought by a copyright troll, of which they were a defendant.
More specifically, this subject fails WP:WEBCRIT in that it has not ... been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. nor has the site won any awards (well known or not) from independent organizations. That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with deletion. The website is a significant political website in the USA, and the lawsuit they successfully defended was against a major newspaper publishing company, with significant precedent for what counts as fair use quotes on the internet. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuit is already covered by Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC. What sources say DU is a "significant political website" as you ascertain? The article has none, and I haven't found any in my searches.That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a ranking showing it as the 11th most popular liberal website (and that's including things like 'Time' and 'CNN', which are clearly not liberal political websites): http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/the-50-most-popular-liberal-websites/ Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were to assume rightwingnews.com is a RS (I posit it's not), a mere entry on a list does NOT make it notable. This is less than a trivial mention. The source provides nothing but an Alexa ranking.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa is a major tool for determining the popularity of websites. To dismiss its results as 'nothing but an Alexa ranking' is ridiculous - there is probably nothing more objective available to determine what is a "significant political website". You appear unwilling to consider any argument. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2016

Are you willing to listen to other arguments? You don't understand the ins and outs of how conflict resolution works on the English Wikipedia. We use policy (community sanctioned "laws" of Wikipedia) and guidelines (best practices). Those are all of those WP links people show you. Please read them. But I can save you some time. Notability (what determines if an article should exist) is a very well hashed out subject and it is codified by policy and guideline. What those say, in a nutshell is "Only notable subjects gets an article. Notability is determined by third party, independent, reliable sources." Reliable sources is a subject of its own, but think of newspapers and books and has some sort of oversight. These RS now need to establish notability, which is done when they discuss a subject with some depth. "List" type articles, that have a name and number and not much else don't meet the bar. How much is needed? We know it when we see it. Now if this list discussed the DU and gave us some details that were interesting, or they demonstrated the DU was influential, now we would have some evidence of notability. The burden for determining notability is on those who wish to keep the article. But that's Wikipedia for you. Every article and evey word must be verifiable, and when challenged the burden of that falls on those who wish to include something. That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alexa notes popularity, not notability. Notability is the guideline used to determine whether a website should have a Wikipedia article; see WP:WEB which says: '"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice.' We need sources that prove that DU is notable; the only possible exception I've seen from the ones listed above is Newsbusters but that article is actually a blog entry by (presumably) a Trump supporter using DU as a source of schadenfreude, I'm not sure if that really is what we mean by coverage. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Alexa rank is irrelevant. If DU were truly "popular" then one would expect RS would exist to assert this statement. If RS could be found that mention DU in a non-trivial manner then I will withdraw my nomination. I'm still miffed that someone dared accused me of making this deletion discussion as a result of personal politics, when in fact I hold personal opinions that are in line with many of DU users. But personal politics have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia.That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A poplar website is, by definition, notable among many people. Popularity is the most objective test of notability. You may be able to make cases for other sites being 'notable' using other metrics, but popularity has to be one that is used, or the word becomes a subjective idea of how important the speaker thinks something is. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that popularity is not how notability is determined at the English Wikipedia. If something is popular, there is a very good chance that a RS takes notice and writes about it. But that is not always the case. We use official Wikipedia policies and guidelines to resolve pretty much every dispute. Please read WP:WEB if you haven't already, as it is the most applicable guideline. Just to let you know what to expect, at some point an admin will close this discussion and they will decide whether the consensus here is to delete or keep the article. However they will give stronger weight to arguments that follow policy and guidelines. IMO none of the arguments you or Steven have made are grounded in either. If 100 people came and !voted using the same rationale as you and Steven have, IMO the admin will not give those !votes any consideration. !vote literally means "not vote" because when determining consensus, we don't simply count heads. We look for quality arguments. I strongly suggest you read WP:CLOSE in its entirety and pay very close to the section labelled How to determine the outcome. If you want to keep this article, I suggest you find policy based justifications to support your position. N.B. admins can spot specious claims quite easily. One does not become an admin on Wikipedia without demonstrating a thorough understanding of policy and guidelines. I think your best shot of finding a policy based argument is to look for reliable sources that discuss DU in a non-trivial manner. I haven't found any, but I will doff my hat to you if you find something. But if you continue down this path of making unsupported arguments, that will be seen as WP: DISRUPTIVE behavior and an admin might take action against you, up to and including blocking your account.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments are not unsupported; I gave the link showing Democratic Underground is one of the most popular liberal websites. Your dismissal of that is, however, unsupported. You suggest reading WP:WEB; I already had, and the Alexa ranking is "verifiable information from reliable sources". The Righthaven lawsuit is also an example of a significant effect on culture. I don't appreciate threats, and your claim that if I continue arguing against you (by repeating the use of the objective Alexa ranking, which you dismiss in favour of your own subjective ideas of 'fame' or 'importance', against the WP:WEB guidelines) I may get banned comes across as a threat, which is highly inappropriate. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again WP:WEB says (and I quote) '"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice.' Popularity is irrelevant when it comes to notability. And per WP:ALEXA, and I quote again, "Specifically, Alexa rankings are not part of the notability guidelines for web sites for several reasons..." - emphasis theirs, not mine. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And since it's been days without anything which meets notability guidelines, I'm now leaning Delete. Good sources will sway my opinion, "but it's popular" arguments will not, per Wikipedia guidelines. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the importance of Democratic Underground's counterclaim lawsuit (they were not just defendants) against Righthaven, it forms a significant part of the 'Copyright Trolls' section of "Major Principles of Media Law" (2013 ed.), published by Cengage. Calling Righthaven "one of the more notorious trolls", it quotes the EFF saying "In dismissing Righthaven's claim in its entirety, Chief Judge Hunt's ruling decisively rejected the Righthaven business model of conveying rights to sue, alone, as a means to enforce copyrights. The ruling speaks for itself." https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dub0CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293 Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on that case, Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC. It's a notable court case. That doesn't make the participants in the court case inherently notable, see WP:NOTINHERITED. If DU's only claim to notability is due to that court case, then WP:NOPAGE should apply, which means we should keep the information in the court case article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with deletion. A simple Google News search on "Democratic Underground" results in 25000+ articles about DU from all kinds of news sources including major newspapers around the world. Let me know if anyone needs me to post specific links on that because there are many. Anyone saying DU fails on notability grounds has simply not done any research at all to determine if that is so. Steven Leser (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Steven Leser[reply]

I really think your time would be better spent looking for better sources. I'm assuming DU members are reading this. If they know of any, sharing them would help put this to bed. Popularity and quotes from users, doesn't determine notability. And I'm basing this opinion having witness how Wikipedia sausage is made. And I apologize if you felt I was threatening you. There are plenty of editors who would give you the barest of warnings while attempting to goad you, just to see you get blocked. Wikipedia can be a very nasty place. We have given you advice on what constitutes notability, as our experience has taught us. I don't think arguing about what policy and guidelines means counter to that experience is going to bear any fruit. Your best bet is to find sources.That man from Nantucket (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, post some quality reliable sources. I'm getting vastly different results than you claim to have retrieved. Perhaps notability can be established. I don't see anything in the current state of the article indicating as such.That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here are just a few:

Extended content

Washington Post "The 2016 first lady cookie contest is just as weird as the rest of the election" https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-2016-first-lady-cookie-contest-is-just-as-weird-as-the-rest-of-the-election/2016/08/17/2c0fb4fa-63c9-11e6-8b27-bb8ba39497a2_story.html On Democratic Underground, a post claims to reveal Trump’s “Family recipe, passed down through generations.” The picture below it is of the Toll House cookie recipe on the back of a bag of Nestle chocolate chips.

Investors Business Daily "Soros' $6 Million For Hillary Speak Volumes" How do they do this? A lefty website such as the Democratic Underground tells us, “they sit behind a computer generating nothing for society but are clever enough to devise financial scams to steal at will. And it’s all ‘legal’ because they use their fortunes to buy as many political prostitutes in Washington as they want or need to write loopholes into laws or to gut regulations.” http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/soros-6-million-for-hillary-speaks-volumes/

Mediaite "Major Hillary Booster Says GOP Can’t Wait to Run Bernie Sanders ‘Hammer and Sickle’ Ads"

Democratic Underground calls McCaskill an “attack dog” and says she’s implying he’s a communist.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/major-hillary-booster-says-gop-cant-wait-to-run-bernie-sanders-hammer-and-sickle-ads-2/

Times of San Diego "Bernie Sanders Visiting San Diego Tuesday for First Time" Has a paste of this tweet:

Dawna @onecaliberal Bernie rally in San Diego already "to capacity". - Democratic Underground http://demu.gr/10027702896 via @demunderground 5:59 PM - 21 Mar 2016

 2 2 Retweets   likes

http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2016/03/21/bernie-sanders-visiting-san-diego-tuesday-for-first-time/

Gawker "Which Progressive Website Editor Is Secretly Supporting Donald Trump?" We’ll table a discussion of this editor’s “transgressionary” voting logic for another time, but we’re curious: Who exactly is this person? “Editor,” “major,” “progressive,” and probably even “website” are not the most strictly defined terms. They could be used to describe an editor at Salon (or Counterpunch, or Raw Story, or Daily Kos), or a moderator at the Democratic Underground forum. Or Alex Pareene, editor-in-chief of Gawker! You never know. http://gawker.com/which-progressive-website-editor-is-secretly-supporting-1781550420

Huffington Post Friday Talking Points - Trump Nickname Contest Finalists From commenter “Me.” at Democratic Underground we got two very workable possibilities: Dirty Donnie and Dishonest Don. Both of these have the qualities that are needed — short, snappy, and designed to get under Trump’s skin in a major way. “ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/friday-talking-points_b_10289486.html

Newsbusters "Democratic Underground Suffers Election Grief Shutdown" The Democratic Underground went into the election last week absolutely confident in Hillary Clinton's victory. As we shall see they were even openly gloating about her winning the presidency before the election even happened. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2016/11/18/democratic-underground-suffers-election-grief-shutdown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Leser (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are trivial references to DU. "A commenter at DU said X". If DU is notable, surely there is a source that discusses the DU in more than a few sentences, right? What you are suggesting as sources goes against how we define GNG.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are not trivial as defined by the GNG. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. What is also going against you is that any site that is mentioned in 20000+ articles in Google News is clearly not being mentioned because it is a non-notable website. <redacted> Steven Leser (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'I would also like to point out that there is a user on DU with almost 30K posts that also shared your username. In light of this discovery, one might very well say your objection to deletion might be politically motivated and/or this is a classic case of WP:ILIKEIT. Regardless, on Wikipedia we use policy and guidelines to handle editorial decisions. So far, none of your arguments has a basis in either. That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are trivial. I'll go with the first, the Washington Post article. It's not about the Democratic Underground website. Someone found a funny post and quoted it. Which is nice, but that doesn't make the web site where they found something funny notable. If they found that post in the comments in someone's blog, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all about notability. Please re-read WP:WEB. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG does not say the articles have to be about Democratic Underground. And once again 20,000+ mentions in different Google News articles completely flies in the face of your attempt to couch Democratic Underground as non-notable. Steven Leser (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no? To quote WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site[5] or trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores." Having a one-line mention of a comment someone said is "trivial" by anyone's definition. I'm not saying delete because I think this site is pretty notable, but really if you used that kind of example in a new article you'd get a7'd so fast your head would spin. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Vernon: before I read the article, I too thought DU would have been notable per Wikipedia standards. The article was such an embarrassment that I went looking for better sources. I couldn't find a damn thing outside of the lawsuit. The fact of the matter is that DU, while it has a decent userbase, hasn't drawn the attention of reliable sources. Without sourcing, what are we to do? There's no there there.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think DU meets all the criteria you just mentioned via the links I submitted. Steven Leser (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC) — Steven Leser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You have two experienced editors telling you these are trivial mentions. I have examined every one of the links you provided. All of them are one liners. Can you tell us why you think the mentions are non trivial? Perhaps quote something that you think is not trivial? Since your edit history is rather sparse, would you mind if I asked how you came upon this deletion discussion?That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Pickard, of the Annenberg School for Communication, in his paper "Cooptation and Cooperation: Institutional Exemplars of Democratic Internet Technology" describes Democratic Underground as a 'prime example' of a 'partisan public sphere' (the other 3 websites he examines, Free Republic, Indymedia and Move On all also have Wikipedia entries). For her PhD thesis Agonistic democracy and the narrative of distempered elites: An analysis of citizen discourse on political message forums, Jennette Castillo wrote about Free Republic and Democratic Underground as exemplars of conservative and progressive political forums. These academic papers show the notability of Democratic Underground in internet political discussion. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis Dr. Pickard's paper, for the purposes of this discussion, is a survey of online political sites at the time. There is a section of three paragraphs specifically on DU, which is about average for the sites covered (Indy Media has 4, Free Republic has 3, MoveOn has 2.) Google Scholar indicates it has 56 cites. The link to Dr. Castillo's dissertation did not work for me but Googling the title of the thesis brought it up fairly easily, I think the ?s_= part of the URL is a session ID which would be invalid for more than one use. This thesis is more "about" DU and Free Republic - in fact it's dedicated to those two sites, and easily spends close to 20 pages on DU alone. Per Google Scholar, it has 7 cites. Both sources date from the same year, 2008. We should follow the guidelines in WP:SCHOLARSHIP which covers both these works - Dr. Castillo's dissertation may or may not be peer reviewed, but presumably it was reviewed by Robert Ivie (see this.) Dr. Pickard's paper was published in New Media & Society according to Google Scholar, which would make it peer reviewed. The reference in Dr. Pickard's paper is not exactly brief (I'm not sure where three paragraphs falls into the spectrum, perhaps other more experienced editors have views) but it is a summary of how DU was working at the time. I'd personally lean more towards Pickard's paper as counting as a reliable source but I don't think it's enough coverage to meet WP:WEBCRIT. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks the DU members are rallying folks to protest the deletion [[26]]. Some are represented in the above comments.Dman727 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please have some experienced contributors comment on the quality of the sources? Sandstein 12:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OK I looked through pages and pages and pages of Google News searches... the sources required simply aren't there. It may be a popular community, but it only gets occasional brief mentions in WP:RS or else it gets attacked by right-wing clickbait sites that lack notability themselves. If it continues to grow in prominence then it could be reconsidered, but as of now the notability isn't there that we require. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep, The subject does have "some" reliable sources speaking about them, however, I don't see much notability at all. If this article were to stay, I would definitely love to see most of the content written be deleted and give this article a significant makeover. Also, the lawsuit sources should NOT be added because it is publicity triggered by the subject. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you mean by "the lawsuit sources should NOT be added because it is publicity triggered by the subject"? The lawsuit was at first brought by Righthaven against Democratic Underground, who, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, successfully defended that (Righthaven withdrew) and counterclaimed (that Righthaven was misusing the copyright laws). It was not about 'publicity'. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak as to what Scorpion meant, but I'm fairly certain he is incorrect that sources can't be used if they are "triggered" by the subject. Sources are sources, and sources independent of the subject are preferred. I don't understand his "borderline keep" as he also indicates he doesn't see "much notability at all". The lack of notability should lead to a delete !vote. Regardless, the sources he is referring to pertains to the fair use lawsuit, which is notable, and is reflected in the article about the lawsuit. Peace, have you searched for other sources that might establish notability for the DU independent of the legal case?That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did show the 2 academic papers classing Democratic Underground as a significant political online forum - see a few entries further above. Mr. Vernon replied, but you didn't, so I don't know if you saw that. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and his analysis is fairly well thought out.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still need more input by experienced contributors. Sandstein 08:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not that it should matter, but the above discussion makes it clear that at least some commenters think that membership or participation in DU renders one's discussion somehow less valid: For the record, I am not involved in DU in any way. That said, the nomination here seems very driven, by what I will not guess. The previous nomination was a Speedy Keep, and I can see nothing that has changed which should overturn that decision. There has been substantive coverage in Huffington Post, Wired News, Newsbusters, and Daily Caller. Again, I feel I need to pre-emptively note that it is entirely unremarkable that a contributor to the new-media web-based news ecosystem primarily generates coverage in other parts of that same news ecosystem. Their new-media web-based nature does not mean they are not WP:RS. A full debate about the reliability of this type of source (oh no! not blogs!) is obviously beyond the bounds for a simple AfD discussion. That said, the above discussion is in itself evidence that this has grown beyond a simple AfD discussion. By the criteria advocated above, it is doubtful any web-based news media would qualify for notability, no matter how many people depended upon it for information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy keep result from first AfD was based solely on the consensus that the nomination was due to internal DU politics and rightly considered a bad faith nomination. There was no discussion of the content of the article or its sources. The first AfD has absolutely no merit with regards to this AfD. Regardless, per WP:NEXIST you fail to establish there is "substantive coverage" on DU that exists in the article, nor has any been presented at this discussion. As I've said before, I would withdraw this nomination or switch to "keep" if any were found. If you have read this entire discussion you should have seen multiple requests to provide sources with non-trivial mentions establishing notability. To claim there is substantive coverage, yet to provide any examples is poor form. What is in extremely poor form is your statement "That said, the nomination here seems very driven, by what I will not guess." That I and others have notified that this AfD has been canvassed off-Wiki is more than proper. Commenters and the closer should be aware of this fact, and making note of this is a Wikipedia norm. What is not normal is your unfounded speculation that this nomination is somehow "very driven" which is an open ended ad-hominmen attack. The purpose of which I can I can only surmise is an attempt to impugn the character of an editor instead of their arguments. Don't ever question someone's motivation without evidence, even with your "I will not guess" disclaimer. It only degrades the conversation. My only motivation in this AfD is to see that the article is subjected to the same standards as every other article.

As for the DU being classified as being a "web-based news media" organization, I don't think anyone has made this claim before. It is a message board. But that in of itself is not a factor in terms of establishing the existence of lack of notability. There are many examples of message boards that are notable, such as Stormfront (website) and 4chan. There are hundreds if not thousands of message boards that are notable because the sources establish their notability.

And let's bring this discussion back to what are the metrics that define notability: Offical Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Surely @Eggishorn: would agree it is/seems/should be notable are poor arguments to make in an AfD discussion? This AfD is challenging that claim that the DU meets the definition of notability as defined by Wikipedia. The burden falls enitrly on the shoulders of those who support the notion that the DU warrants an article because they are able to A) establish the DU either meets or exceeds the criteria defined by WP:GNG and/or B) identify and demonstrate that one or more of the Subject-specific guidelines is applicable.That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, AfD discussions are just that: discussions, with the goal of reaching consensus. Only a truly disputatious individual would risk edit blocks and other measures by making it personal. To conjure ad hominens out of the simple observation that "..the nomination here seems very driven" is debatable in that light. That said, if 2000+ words over 28 edits doesn't constitute "driven," then I don't know what would. Editors often feel a need to take ownership of AfD discussions, and in the past, I have felt the same way. FOr that reason, I feel no requirement to respond point-by-point to these statements except to point out the risk of WP:BOOMERANG when one chooses to toss around bad-faith accusations to a previously-uninvolved editor. I also note that I did mention a number of WP:RS that had substantial coverage of DU, but perhaps you are right that I should have include full links. Not a problem:

Newsbusters [27] (yes, I see it linked previously, no I don't agree with the characterization)
The Register [28]
The Daily Caller [29]
Wired News [30]
TechPresident [31]

Thanks Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one throwing out accusations. You chose to question my motivation, with no evidence. The implication is fairly clear. If you feel a boomerang is in order, well I'm sure you know this isn't the forum to address that. I'm fairly confident any boomerang won't come for my neck.. As to you providing sources, I thank you. However we both know The Daily Caller and their ilk are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. The Wired article is an excellent source, but it doesn't discuss the DU outside of the context of the "news troll" (for the lack of a better term). This lawsuit is notable, and indeed already has an article. But it and the rest of the sources you provided don't discuss the DU In terms to satisfy WP:WEBCRIT, specifically The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. IMO this is the most authoritative guideline on Wikipedia that defines what websites pass muster for an article. I was surprised I was unable to find any sources that discussed the DU outside of the lawsuit. Being a very popular website usually attracts the attention of sources looking for a story. But popularity does not confer notability. Contrast DU with the Free Republic, similar in all respects to the DU except they are on the opposite side of the US political spectrum. A look at that articles sources shows many are trivial or comes from FR itself but there are also several articles from quality RS that discuss FR in enough detail that it meets WP:WEBCRIT. For reasons that elude me, DU has not received any significant coverage outside of the lawsuit. Once again, if anyone can find some I'd be happy to reconsider my position.That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. Maybe you're not seeing the same thing I'm seeing. I see "...the nomination seems very driven..." I don't see "the nominator is very driven" or "...TMFN is very driven..." or even "...TMFN is making bad faith arguments...". I never said anything like "TMFN is doing something wrong and his argument should be distrusted." That is kind of the sine qua non of the phrase ad hominem. To be plain: You assumed I was meaning something that I was specifically avoiding implying. Your evident offense is misplaced. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing curious about it. You can parse words all you like, I doubt any rationale person will see the distinction. Unless you wish to discuss the merits of the AfD instead of motivations, I think you and I are done here.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article already has good mix of sources including both The New York Times and Fox News. Also discussed in multiple books including Beyond the Blogosphere: Information and Its Children by Aaron J. Barlow and Robert Leston, and Major Principles of Media Law by Genelle Belmas and ‎Wayne Overbeck. Sagecandor (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I'm not sure if people are reading the prior discussions before adding their !vote, but both of those books are only mentioning DU with respect to the lawsuit covered in Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC. I can't speak to exactly which FN and NYT articles Sagecandor speaks of, but so far no one has been able to produce an example from either organization that mentions the DU outside of s trivial mention.That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The re seem to be sufficient news stories, but about half of it, the copyright troll lawsuit, is covered elsewhere in WP. The GNG needs to be interpreted liberally for media organizations w which can be very notable, but still rarely written about. There of course has to be at least something to show more than mere existence, and there is here. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is DU considered a media organization, and by whom? They are internet-based forums and should be judged based on criteria for similar forums, so falling under WP:WEB. This is not making a judgment on them, but we should apply Wikipedia's criteria consistently. I would consider them as much a media organization as Free Republic. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic is a great example of why some web forums have articles, and others don't (or shouldn't). If you look at FR's lead, skipping over generic web forum description to the second paragraph:. Free Republic has been involved in several organized conservative campaigns including against CBS anchor Dan Rather and against the Dixie Chicks for their antiwar statements.[4] Freepers were instrumental in raising the question of a lack of authenticity in the so-called "Killian memos". This meets WP:WEB, as there are multiple RS that discuss FR in detail. At least two of the articles discuss nothing but the Free Republic. @DGG:, what is your definition of a media organization? Can you see any section in WP:NMEDIA that could classify DU as a media organization?That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear distinction for many website, as NMEDIA makes clear, by saying it isn;'t discussing them. In a broader sense, sites devoted to advocacy and news about current events count as media organizations. In any case, I favor a broad interpretation for sites such as this, as I do for all political subjects. Otherwise there tends ot be sometimes a tendency to be influenced by what one supports personally. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Labeling DU a "Media organization" is just too far of a stretch. Such a broad interpretation would qualify just about every Disqus site. Indeed there are many Disqus sites which produce actual content and they wouldnt survive a speedy delete. Now being an "advocacy" site might have some merit, but we come full circle back to where are the sources? Both DU and FR are essentially news aggregation echo chambers and while they both unabashedly advocate, FR's advocacy attracts the attention of sources. Regardless, thanks for discussing. Perhaps when this is over would you help me starting a discussion at whatever venue would be the most appropriate to discuss criteria for advocacy organization's notability? If this article is kept, it would be more of an annoyance to me that it doesn't (IMO) meet any relevant guidelines vs it being kept. If that happens, perhaps the closer's rationale can provide more insight.

I haven't been idle on trying to find sources for DU. The current state is better than what I found it in, but it's still in very poor shape.That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there's sufficient sourcing for a stand-alone article at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There are many independent sources linking to DU. A google search for "-site:democraticunderground.com "Democratic Underground"" finds 400,000 hits. A google search for "-site:democraticunderground.com link:democraticunderground.com" finds 350,000 hits. Are those hits substantive? On just the first few pages of results, I see many that are substantive, especially from opponents of DU.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] COI Notice: I have a vague recollection that I may have contributed something to DU around a decade ago. I have no connection otherwise. RichardMathews (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall, Wikipedia doesn't consider Conservapedia as a NPOV source. I checked some of the other sources you mentioned, which I had found with this Google search. The first few mostly quoted DU user posts as examples of "I can't even!" from more politically conservative websites, e.g. Michelle Malkin and Right Wing News. Many of the other articles are specifically in reference to the Righthaven lawsuit, which already has its own article. I *DO* believe you made a good point, that opponents of DU might provide more substantive material to support keeping the article. I will continue searching. I have another idea: Could we justify keeping the article (because of its history and consistent presence as a high traffic website) by changing the status from C-class to Stub, and including it as part of the Internet Culture Wikiproject?--FeralOink (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are websites, for which Wikipedia has articles, which reference Democratic Underground extensively. The best one that I found is Power Line which has been writing about content provided by DU for nearly two decades, see here Power Line stories discussing DU. I'm not sure if Snopes is an acceptable source for Wikipedia. There are a few Snopes articles that investigate content from DU, e.g. Sanders Marched with MLK at Selma?. Also, here is a TechPresident article whose content is focused specifically on DU: AP photo became viral Romney meme. This is the best I could find that hasn't already been listed earlier in this AfD discussion.--FeralOink (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've identified the problem with citing Google hit counts. Analysis of the hits show the same thing: The lawsuit, and trivial mentions. Just saying "sources exist" really shouldn't fly without highlighting a few which might establish notability. Good luck in finding some. That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 01:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Slam Rankings

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

Does not seem to meet general notability requirement, no idea why this organisation's list is needed as an encyclopaedic article. No secondary sources. Seems largely to be a copy of the single primary source of the article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not notable and failed to meet WP:GNG stipulations.--Richie Campbell (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely fails WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2016 (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 12:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nishanth (actor)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, The actor has played some supporting roles but I can't see if he has played any major role in any film except Thoonga Nagaram which was released in 2011 and I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~~~. I think it passes WP:GNG~~...Rameshnta909 (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rameshnta909: I tried everywhere even accroding to WP:INDAFD but can't find a single independent reliable source to support WP:GNG which addresses the topic directly. GSS (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He worked in 6 films and the part in one of them was notable. Anyway I am on the fence on this one...Rameshnta909 (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rameshnta909: And that fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR and its WP:TOOSOON for stand alone article. GSS (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K Let's wait for a third opinion...Rameshnta909 (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is quite simple, trivial and unconvincing career, and nothing amounting to substance hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For a consensus I change my position to Delete...Rameshnta909 (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2016 (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 12:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yukimasa Obi

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

ANN role analysis:

1) Zero Enma (Candidate for Goddess - main)

2) Tatsuki Kuroi (Super Gals - main)

Only two main roles, on top of no secondary news sources to assert notability. Article is a credits dump with no room for improvement at all. Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)_{Note to reader:This user is now tbanned from these discussions please don't respond to them directly as they can not reply and it could possibly be triggering for them. --Adam in MO Talk --Adam in MO Talk 04:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)04:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In addition to Pilot Candidate / The Candidate for Goddess and Super GALS!, he voices main characters Cisca Kanzaki in Starship Operators and Firion in Final Fantasy II and Origins [41] I'm not sure if there are sufficient biographical sources though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no room for improvement to write a sufficient bio. Even if we kept the article, it would still fail WP:BIO and WP:WHYN. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firion is an incredibly minor role in this case. Gameplay is unvoiced, just like the Wonderswan version the game is ported from. Voice acting is only in FMV and there aren't exactly many of them - 1 as far as I can tell (its been a long time since I played it).SephyTheThird (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. Kind of like that girl who voices Zelda or the guy that voices Donkey Kong. They speak?! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is precisely why I've nommed the article for deletion. No reason to keep an article for a voice actor that's only literally known for two or three series that aren't very well known. Besides, as I've mentioned before, it will fail WP:BIO either way. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep There are sources in Japanese that may, shed some more light on his bio. Just because there aren't sources in English doesn't mean there aren't sources. --Adam in MO Talk 03:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barely any, unfortunately. Also, what you just said is WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES right there. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no Japanese sources which can be used to establish notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I trust Nihonjoe on this one as it looks like he looked for sources but came up empty. I have no objections to someone placing this article into a draft user-page though for possible future improvements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2016 (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 relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Sleeper

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

In a rare instance of bringing an article here instead of first going through PROD or CSD-G11 etc., I am concerned that this article, posted in only 3 edits, has all the hallmarks of a commissioned work. It's quite obviously (to me at least) artspam - advertorial for a fashion firm masquerading as a Wikipedia BLP. All the sources appear to be about her company and her products. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced by tabloid newspapers, specialized fashion magazines/websites, and by "general" sources such as CNN. To me, they seem to be independent and quite substantial. Yes, they are about "her company and her products", maybe that's because Samantha Sleeper creates interesting and noteworthy products, is that possible? In my opinion, we shouldn't discuss motives of the creator, the way an article was created or habits of the nominator, but instead of it we should discuss real notability of the subject and the sources available. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit This entire article is clearly not written from a neutral point of view; there needs to be some editing done on this article to ensure it reads without any promotional slant. This should've been corrected before the article was put to AfD, however. The subject passes notability easily with WP:GNG so I don't see this as a contender for deletion. st170e^talk 00:27, 19 December 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 01:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bisheaba

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable subject. Jon Kolbert (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as solely advertising and the 1 advertising account shown by the history confirms it. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable makeup artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable make up artist who does not pass any notability guidelines and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources either. Techwikiwitty (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as A9 (article about recording by redlinked artist with no indication of significance). Michig (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Cesspool of Culture

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

Non-notable album Jon Kolbert (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2016 (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. Sandstein 06:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Akira Is Insatiable

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

A catalog-like entry on an unremarkable film series; significant RS coverage cannot be found. Does not meet WP:NFILM, the awards listed (even if they were not PR driven) are not significant and well known. I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles follow the same format and have the same notability challenges:

Ass Worship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cheer Squad Sleepovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lesbian Seductions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexis Texas Is Buttwoman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For an AfD for articles of similar stature, please see:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Wet Asses

This was a group nomination; five pages were deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All four of these articles can't be bundled here because they weren't all created by the same creator; not to mention that they aren't even all from the same production company. But as for Cheer Squad Sleepovers and Lesbian Seductions...worst-case scenario, they could both be redirected to Girlfriends Films. Better yet, what's wrong with discussing the notability of pornographic films at WT:NFILM? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help comment Nominator asserts that all five of these articles have the "same notability challenges". Nominator has not prepared the discussion with the five WP:BEFORE D1 results, and four "Find sources" templates have not been provided. A quick count of references in the five articles indicates that those counts vary from 4 to 32. A review shows that the awards won by these five films varies. Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested that the four extra articles added to this AfD be de-bundled. I have marked those four articles above with strikeout font. Please adjudicate the refusal of the nominator to de-bundle. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further admin help comment Although I stated in the above admin help that the four extra articles were marked with strikeout font, an editor just now removed those markings. However, this diff now provides the same information. FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't see a problem with bundling this AfD, as I've nominated film series from a variety of production companies, and they all have the same format (brief blurb + list of awards) and are equally notability challenged. All have been deleted, including a series from Girlfriends Films: Mother-Daughter Exchange Club AfD.

Re: WT:NFILM, any editor should feel free to start a discussion there. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there is little to no community support for the idea of a special porn film guideline, because NFILM was been working rather well -- in contrast to PORNBIO and its repeated attendant fiascos. The proponent has trotted the suggestion out repeatedly, and it has never garnered significant support. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis. None of these articles have any genuinely independent, substantive sourcing. And in no other field to we redirect non-notable works to their production companies/distributors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all relevant content as follows: Asa Akira Is Insatiable with Asa Akira, Ass Worship with Jules Jordan, Lesbian Seductions with Girlfriends Films, and Alexis Texas Is Buttwoman with Alexis Texas. Guy1890 (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relevant content to merge. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is...there are brief descriptions of the films in question (including who directed them) & award/nomination sections...not to mention possibly some of the info that you intentionally, recently gutted from a couple of these articles before you brought them here to AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable franchise, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Davey and Wolowitz. Can't see any real notability here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the note that useful information has been removed from the articles prior to the nomination, here's the sample from Lesbian Seductions, Dec 2015 page version:

Lesbian Seductions 03

Released: June 30, 2005 (2005-06-30)^[1]
Running time: 163 minutes^[2]
Starring: Nina Hartley, Anna Mills, Porsche Lynn, Charlie Laine, Aspen Stevens, Nicole Moore

References

^ Lesbian Seductions: Older/Younger 3 (Video 2005) - IMDb. Retrieved January 14, 2013.
^ lesbian seductions 3 - porn movie - iafd.com - internet adult film database. Retrieved January 14, 2013.

That is why I stated that there was no usable information to merge. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clear here about what's really happened to some of the articles nominated at this AfD (in addition to many, many, many more articles that have been edited in recent weeks/months by the same editor that started this AfD), they recently gutted more than 85% of one of the articles, including removing info that was reliably-sourced (just like is highlighted above). Both IMDb & IAFD are reliable sources for release dates, running times, and/or cast lists for these kind of movies. Guy1890 (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Reply to nonsense & "Reply to yet more baloney", pls see WP:NPA. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Global Information Management

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

A journal published by a vanity press whose article was deleted, with an impact factor of 0.303, and no reliable independent secondary sources. All sources listed are primary, and in any case directories. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In Scopus and has a JCR impact factor, so it meets notability via WP:NJOURNALS. --Mark viking (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Notability is not that bad, but I would suggest that should been merged and redirected to a specific article. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Selected for inclusion in Scopus, Current Contents, and the Social Sciences Citation Index. Especially the latter is very selective. That the publisher is not notable doesn't mean that one of its journals cannot be notable (that would be kind of a reverse INHERITED, I guess). --Randykitty (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so WP:ITSINDEXED is now policy, overriding WP:V, WP:RS and WP:GNG? This is a zero-impact journal and I cannot find a single source that actually talks about it. There is nothing apart from the fact of being indexed. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a single source that actually talks about it. Here's one for starters. Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing - a book very much liek those published by IGI Global, of Hershey Pennsylvania, published by a company in Hershey, Pennsylvania. That is a very singular coincidence! And here's another: does the name Mehdi Khosrow-Pour sound familiar? this web page lists the editor of the journal which is the subject of this article. Small world, eh? Guy (Help!) 00:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently passes WP:GNG & WP:NJOURNALS Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm with Guy here . There's no indication in any secondary source that this journal is notable. agtx 16:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes Wikipedia:NJOURNALS Criterion 1 with citation indexes. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And of course you advocate keep, as the creator, and an editor with a strange desire to re-introduce the article on the vanity press that publishes this journal. But subject notability guidelines don't trup canonical policy. Where are the reliable independent sources about this subject? WP:NOTDIR regardless of how much people might want to use subject-specific guidelines as a box-ticking exercise in the absence of actual sources. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"A vanity press, vanity publisher, or subsidy publisher is a term describing a publishing house in which authors pay to have their books published." (Wikipedia). The publisher does not charge for publishing so is not a vanity press. That said, by this definition, open access publishing by publishers like Elsevier is "vanity publishing"! —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the suggestion that this journal is published by a vanity press, as implied in the proposal above, should be discounted since this is an incorrect designation according to Wikpedia's own definition of a vanity press, IMHO. Indeed, I believe that the publisher IGI Global (founded in 1988 with 170+ journals to its name) was deleted due to misinformation on this aspect in the deletion discussion. See further information above. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 01:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluca Vacchi

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

I've removed PROD, but opening a discussion. As a businessman he's not quite notable, but his Instagram blog has 6.6 million followers and as a blogger there are quite enough sources in press that may add support for notability claim. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete WP:SOAP probably applies. The page of Gianluca Vacchi on the italian Wikipedia ( https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianluca_Vacchi ) has been deleted, with consensus, at least 6 times. Currently it is protected to avoid useless re-creation and re-deletion. ALoopingIcon (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, in my opinion, the page should be kept, he is not relevant as businessman, of course, but he has become famous on social networks and is a sort popular culture icon (whatever the origin of his notability is). I think wiki would do a service informing his readers about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.204.32.169 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT per above. Totally run of the mill investor. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is an obvious self-aggrandisement of an individual with no substantive merit. With the possibility of purchasing social media followers and engagement readily available and in common abuse, the substantiation of Instagram followers or other platforms can hold no weight as a barometer of the individual's importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.84.40 (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eggology

AfDs for this article:

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

As a company, it doesn't appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. As a brand/product, it exists, has some use in a few cookery books, etc, but appears to lack significant coverage. The brand was bought out by Pearl Valley Farms in 2015, and a redirect and encapsulation there might theoretically be an option, but PVF doesn't meet CORPDEPTH either. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising and literally everything emphasizes it hence not notable and WP:NOT policy also applies. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete -- fails to establish notability & this content belongs on the company web site anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2016 (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) SST flyer 10:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne City Ballet

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

A CSD-G11 (advert) was declined. This is an up coming new ballet company with no claims to importance or significance. Only primary sources.Only sn Ghits. Reads like a brochure or an sn entry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - refs easily found on ballet and its productions from different types of media. Not hugely notable yet, but passes the minimum requirements. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

The only reliable mainstream media source there is the Sydney Morning Herald Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no claims of significance. Also the article looks like a Brochure of the band that taken from their website.JackTracker (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. The article does need cutting and tone adjustment. But multiple examples of substantial coverage of its activities are found in searches (see the GNews search link above, for example), enough anyway to suggest this has become a notable cultural institution in Melbourne. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Melbourne City Ballet is not by any means a notable cultural institution in Melbourne, it is just an independent dance company with an impressive sounding name. It is not especially notable and coverage is not particularly significant or independent, but it might just pass the test.Boneymau (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - borderline notable - hm m.... Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, covered by government-sponsored websites [49], [50] and in mainstream media [51], [52], [53]. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a major cultural institution in a major metro area. The article needs fixes, but is not really that bad. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs work but it is notable and not worthy of WP:TNT. -- Dane ^talk 20:33, 9 December 2016 (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Lund

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines for movie producers. The sources in news search doesn't have article title mentioning him. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable movie/TV producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per notability guidelines and WP:BLP. The show he produces is relatively unknown and there is no substantial information about him as a person to reliably source the article.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Wong (ice hockey)

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see that on recreation a user claims that he now meets WP:NHOCKEY, but I am unable to see how.18abruce (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of recreation his number of games in the ECHL met NHOCKEY. NHOCKEY has since changed to a more stringent requirement so would no longer meet it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, thank you, didn't participate in these discussions until recently.18abruce (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2016 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing

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

The article doesn't meet our notability requirements, the only sources are Worldcat and one book. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article effectively has one source. Seems to be a vehicle for expounding the views of Smelser and his colleague. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. and as discussed on the talk page. Kierzek (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article's creator: I'd note that the page was nominated for deletion a day after it was created. The nom apparently did not perform a WP:BEFORE to assess the subject's notability and look for additional sources, which I easily located and since added to the article: diff.

In a similar fashion, the nom questioned the notability of Ronald Smelser, one of the authors cited in the article & whose views are being "expounded" in it (please see Talk:Ronald Smelser#Query regarding notability). That was despite the subject being an academic with 30+ years of tenure at a major university & an author of multiple books, which have been published by university presses and widely cited & reviewed. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources used in the article indicate significant coverage. They appear to be passing mentions. My comment (not AfD) regarding Smelser is irrelevant, and I waited until another editor had also expressed concern about notability here before AfD'ing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How extensively is the company discussed in the book by Smelser/Davies? --Hegvald (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that coverage is fairly extensive for a niche publisher. For example, the authors treat Fedorowicz as the leading player in the specialty / militaria genre that publishes what they define as "guru" authors of the Eastern Front, such as Franz Kurowski, Richard Landwehr and others:

In some cases, as their [gurus'] appeal grows, they graduate up the scale of publishing importance from self-publishing to the myriad small presses, (...) such as Schiffer Publishing, Bibliophile Legion Books, Merriam Press; to the top, particularly to the Fedorowicz publishing house, which turns out scores of books dealing with the German army and related units during World War Two. To be published through Fedorowicz is to have arrived.

The authors also discuss Fedorowicz's role in bringing Kurowski to the North American market; their apparent agreement with the need to counter-balance the "defamation of the German soldier"; the licensing arrangement with Stackpole Books & how that expanded the reach of the authors that Fedorowicz had translated from German, etc. It'd say being covered in a work published by Cambridge University Press & held by 470 libraries is WP:SIGCOV for a publisher such as Fedorowicz. Hope this answers the question. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? You're saying that Smelser et al's work being held by 470 libraries is significant coverage of this publishing company? How exactly does that work? It is this company that needs "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, not Smelser et al's book. That would be the test for an article about that book, not this article. I think you're confused about what we're discussing here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that being covered in a book by two academics is significant coverage for the publisher in question. I.e. big fish (Fedorowicz) in a small pond (specialty / militaria publishing) as they are being profiled in a notable book (The Myth of the Eastern Front), vs having been profiled in a local edition of Winnipeg Free Press (See WP:AUD). Hope this helps clarify. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "big fish small pond" characterisation is entirely unsupported with evidence. Your relationship to Smelser et al begs the question, given your promotion of them throughout WP, including through the creation of this article and the article on Smelser. The notability of the book (or Smelser) isn't relevant to whether this publishing company is notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently extensive coverage in a book by two professional historians and published by the Cambridge University Press. Coffman's reasoning looks convincing to me. --Hegvald (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What has been described is hardly "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, and certainly not "extensive coverage". It is one source, for starters, and the coverage described is hardly significant. Are we to have an article on any publishing company that has ever been mentioned in a book? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coffman claims that the coverage of this subject in Smelser's and Davies' book is extensive, not just a mention. If you are disputing this, please discuss their treatment of JJF based on the content of the book, not just by dismissing it. --Hegvald (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hegcald, you are missing the point that it is only one book and the opinion of two men as to the work of an entire company; that is not extensive independent coverage. Even with addition from others I am not convinced at this time. Kierzek (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be some discussions about the extensiveness of how this publisher is discussed in Smelsers book. I want to add that the book is on Google books (link), so everybody can form his own opinion on this issue. Dead Mary (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't even close: there is no coverage on Google News whatsoever, no non-affiliated hits in Gbooks. As for this talk of 'counter-balancing the defamation' of Nazi Germany's soldier's, fortunately, I don't even need to get into that. This flagrantly fails WP:ORG.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I would agree that this a non-notable special interest publisher. But it has a certain impact on the "popular culture of the Romancers", as documented by Smelser/Davies. The company provided translations of many revisionist and apologetic works, many written by German veterans, and made them easily available to an English speaking audience. Thus Fedorowicz inadvertently shaped the way German military history of WW II is presented in the English Wikipedia. In fact, some of the company's titles, like their "Panzer Ace"-series (3 vols.), were apparently instrumental in shaping popular culture, i.e. memory of WW II, so strongly, that a stand-alone articles like "Panzer ace" in popular culture is considered worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. That being said, the main argument for deletion is formalistic in nature. I doubt that WP:ORG is up to the peculiarities of the publishing market. Hard to tell, for example, if many of the smaller University Presses would be up to that challenge. So I did not find third-party source about the UP of Kentucky, which publishes many translations from German military historians. Anyway, there are now three further commendations by third party sources. Surely, the respective authors are like-minded and would not qualify as authorities of military historiography, but they support what are most likely unremarkable and uncontroversial claims, namely that J.J. Fedorowicz has a reputation and an impact in the field of militaria, which is exactly what Smelser/Davies claim. I am surprised, however, that this article was nominated for deletion so quickly, instead of asking for further sources or even adding content first.--Assayer (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assayer, your tagteam support of K.e.coffman is becoming highly predictable. I'm afraid that your argument just doesn't stack up against GNG, where is the requirement is "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". This publishing house just doesn't have that. FWIW, this article came to my attention so quickly because K.e.coffman immediately started linking the article to the publisher fields in multiple articles on my watchlist. I mentioned my concerns about notability on the talk page (which K.e.coffman did not respond to), and my concerns were reflected by another editor, so I nominated it. Simple as that. That is how we test notability on WP. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point was not how the article came to your attention, but that you nominated it for deletion within 25 hours. Simple as that. (But I'll keep in mind how notability is tested on WP.) I understand that in Wikipedia to speak of WP:TAGTEAM is considered to be uncivil. What you seem to suggest to me is, that I should not contribute in any discussions where K.e.coffmann is involved, unless I disagree and vice versa. Why won't you just explain, why you think that the cited commendations do not make up for the problem of "one source", since you strongly emphasized the plural? Are there still too few sources? Do you consider the coverage to be insignificant, and how, then, do you define "significant"? Do you think that these sources are not reliable? --Assayer (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether referring to editors as a tag team is uncivil or not depends on whether the claim can be substantiated or not. You regularly turn up on articles on my rather limited watchlist where K.e.coffmann is already involved (or vice versa), and I have yet to see a thread where you disagreed with him/her, often you appear to bolster each other's opinions. In my experience on en WP, it is rare that two editors' views so closely correspond, so it is hard to assume good faith in these circumstances. I've seen the same type of behaviour over the years on Yugoslavia-related topics, and I could easily provide a significant number of diffs of your editing and K.e.coffmann's to illustrate my concerns. To answer the substantive question, on face value, "significant coverage in multiple sources" means that more than one source has significant coverage. What may constitute significant coverage in Smelser et al's book is a matter of opinion, from what I can see of this clearly seminal text, I don't consider it is. The other sources have passing mentions at best. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then it seems that you missed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German tank aces, where I was certainly not in favor of Keep & Move and still think, that the whole concept of that article is misleading. It is true, that coffman's efforts encouraged me to contribute to a larger degree to the English Wikipedia, simply because beforehand I had, given the sheer number of sources of, imo, ridiculously low quality constantly being used, written off English Wikipedia on Nazi Germany military history as fancruft. If I can help to improve the situation by my knowledge of German language sources, I will be happy to do so, even if you don't like my opinions.--Assayer (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting 25 hours to nominate for deletion is in no way hasty, as these things go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above is considered a duplicate iVote. Suggest it be stricken. Pls see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Miscellaneous advice:

"If you are the nominator of an article for deletion, your desire to delete it is assumed. Because of this, you do not get to !vote (that is, for the second time) in your own AfD."

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- as the editor who started the article I believe I do get to cast a vote (unlike the nom above :-) ). I've not found that the arguments advocating deletion have been sufficient at this AfD, for the following reasons:

Getting hits in gNews is a not requirements for WP:NCORP. In fact, the news hits are often a sign of a company doing self-promotion. The guidelines state:

WP:CORPDEPTH: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." -- we have at least one source that provides WP:SIGCOV. Other sources cited confirm that the subject is indeed notable in its space.
WP:AUD: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" -- which we have here in an international source, a widely held book written by two professional historians. Smelser & Davies describe JJF as "the leading press" in its niche; this is sufficient claim to notability in my view.

The statement "no non-affiliated hits in Gbooks" appears to be incorrect as DeadMary has provided a link to the Myth of the Eastern Front from Google books; here it is again: link. Or is there another definition of what "non-affiliated" means?

The argument that "the requirement is 'significant coverage in multiple reliable sources'" seems to be a misstatement, as this is not the language that appears in WP:GNG. The pertinent language from GNG is:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

There's no requirement there that multiple reliable sources provide significant coverage each. The guideline further states:

"We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view" and (from CORPDEPTH) "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability".

Multiple sources have indeed been provided and paint a "reasonably balanced" picture of the press: it receives praise from militaria authors, while two historians who studied the subject have provided a critical assessment. There's been no arguments advanced why these sources should not be considered reliable.

In sum, I don't believe that the delete votes have provided sufficient arguments at this AfD that are consistent with Wikipedia's policies and notability guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will be unsurprising to most editors reading this that the creator of the article is against its deletion, just as the nominator is for deletion. I struggle to follow your argumentation. If multiple sources were not required, one would therefore be sufficient. It is accepted that one source is not a sufficient basis to establish the notability of a subject, therefore reliable sources are required. They need to cover the subject in a significant way. It doesn't say that if one source contains significant coverage, that's ok. Even if we accepted that Smelser and Davies' coverage of this publishing house is significant (which I don't), the other sources cannot in any way be considered to provide significant coverage. They are passing mentions at best. Therefore this article fails the GNG test as it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and should be deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "It doesn't say that if one source contains significant coverage, that's ok" -- in fact, WP:GNG does:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM...."

Per CORPDEPTH, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." My contention is that the coverage in The Myth is not trivial nor incidental. The other sources present confirm that the subject is notable in its field and provide a different perspective. The coverage in toto needs to be significant, which I believe it is in this case. The OP appears to be misinterpreting the guideline in question. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hate to see useful, referenced information discarded because it is not considered relevant. I don't like it when K.e.coffman does it and I'm not too keen on it here. Smelser and Davies seem to say that Fedorowicz is atop the heap in its niche, which is good, but the nature of their book means that much of it amounts to short case studies of rather niche-y things. According to the index, pages 206–18 cover the website Feldgrau.net (formerly German armed Forces in WWII). Likewise, Mark Yerger has similar coverage to Fedorowicz in Smelser and Davies. Do Feldgrau and Yerger deserve articles? (Maybe they do. I don't know.) I lean keep because I don't like to see valuable work digging up information go to waste, but I'm not sure this article currently demonstrates notability. Srnec (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Going by the reception section of this publisher has been discussed in multiple scholarly sources. It's a niche military history publisher, we shouldn't expect to see dozens and dozens of hits, but there's obviously enough depth of coverage for a decent article. Joe Roe (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check: it has only been mentioned in one scholarly source. --Nug (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would <deleted> does not merit taking up valuable time and bandwidth for Wikipedia and its writers. As Peacemaker67 has mentioned above, I don't believe it meets notability standards Philby NZ (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- this appears to be a pointy vote, given the editor's concerns & solicitation of opinions about my editing in the past, such as:

Copyright violations, describing my editing as "sabotage"
Misplaced editorial zeal: [K.e.coffman's editing] "has already p*ssed a couple of the researchers off enough into their leaving and I am getting to that level as well"
Contrary editors: "I just wish we can find a way to muzzle him and stop his arbitrary vandalism" Etc.

The related articles came to my attention both due to their use of unreliable sources, such as a fan site http://www.luftwaffe.cz/ (see Talk:Günther Seeger#Recent edit), and copyvio content (see Potential copyvio). The editor had been warned of copyright violations in the past so this must not have come as a surprise.

Most recently, the topic of web sources on Luftwaffe pilots was discussed at RSN (Luftwaffe pilots web resources), where the editor received the same response as they did from me (and another editor) almost two months ago (Luftwaffe pilots).

I believe that this vote should be further discounted by the closer, as the poster has not demonstrated sufficient understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in related matters. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Philby NZ: Please consider striking the first part of your comment. AfD discussions should be about the article, not the person who created them. Joe Roe (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, FWIW. Tho I stand by my view that the editing history alludes to article-bias Philby NZ (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that K.e.coffman has already started deleting cites as "unreliable" due to the publisher, I'd say your original comment would fall under WP:SPADE. --Nug (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nug. To create an article on a small publisher of niche militaria based mainly on a source critical of just such niche militaria while simultaneously removing citations of works from this very publisher as "unreliable" is what seems pointy to me. Srnec (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it being suggested that Like a Cliff in the Ocean by Karl Ullrich is a reliable source? I'd also add that my edit summary was not about the publisher but about "Unreliably cited intricate detail". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information to a point that it needs to cite that regiments were redesignated several times to a source such as Ulrich. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a Wehrmacht regiment's structure and name? Yes, for that I think Ullrich is acceptable. Srnec (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company has received reasonably detailed coverage in a scholarly book, and some coverage in other sources so notability is established (especially if the lax standards which apply for the notability of the books its published are factored in per WP:BK). It's a reasonably prolific press, so there's likely to be more sourcing than is currently used through elements of book reviews and the like (that said, searches in Google News and JSTOR didn't return any useful results). The article strikes me as reasonably well balanced in its current state, and while it can certainly be improved it doesn't qualify for WP:TNT. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same book? Apart from the fact that J J Fedorowicz publishes books written by German veterans, what additional coverage does this scholarly book provide that couldn't be summarised in one single sentence? "Reasonably detailed coverage" would have to be at least chapter if we are to rely on a single source. --Nug (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage of this publisher in a single book, by Smelser et al, "Myth of the Eastern Front", is shallow and incidental, a handful of mentions of J J Fedorowicz as the publisher of this or that book written by some German veteran, and half a page about how Otto Carius thanks J J Fedorowicz for publishing his book in the foreword of Tigers in the Mud. Okay, I get it, J J Fedorowicz publishes books written by German veterans. That's about sum total of the "coverage" of this company. The company website reveals it is a tiny three man operation, being mindful of WP:NOTADVERTISING, do they really deserve a Wikipedia article? Doesn't objectively meet the notability criteria per WP:COMPANY. --Nug (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editor Nug and I interacted before, most recently at Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Marseille and Nazism. Specific to the topic at hand (Fedorowicz and its war-romancing authors), we interacted at RSN when discussing the use of Franz Kurowski, one of Fedorowicz's authors, in an article on Otto Kittel, a WWII German pilot.

In the March 2016 RSN discussion, the editor advocated retention of Kurowski, asking "Is it really that difficult to identify and exclude Kurowski's "romantic heroicization of the German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism" while keeping those details of the Wehrmacht that have been acknowledged to be accurate?" and that "to reject Kurowski completely as unreliable on the basis of [the Smelser] source is a little bit extreme". The nom agreed with Nug's overall assessment and, on a continuation thread at MilHist, described the article on Kurowski that I initiated as an "attack page". (This was the response). The participants are welcome to look at the Franz Kurowski article and decide whether it's an attack piece or an NPOV representation of the available sources.

Specific to the vote above, it does not offer sufficient argument for deletion, IMO. Company size is not included in WP:NCOMPANY; in fact, many companies with hundreds of employees are not notable for lack of RS coverage. This company (due to its role in the space of specialty military literature: "scores of books"; "one of the leading romancers' presses"; "to be published through Fedorowics is to have arrived"; etc) is indeed significant and notable, as evidenced by being covered by a notable, international source, plus additional sources.

This AfD is beginning to look to be more about Ronald Smelser and / or K.e.coffman than the article in question. Several of the arguments appear to be pointy, and should be discounted as not offering valid deletion rationales. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

??? I've only interacted with K.e.coffman in a handful of articles out of the hundreds that he has edited. The company size comment was in relation to WP:NOTADVERTISING. With regard to notability the bottom line is the coverage of Fedorowicz in this one scholarly source is extremely shallow and insufficient to achieve notability per WP:COMPANY. --Nug (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form, the article is most clearly not an advertisement. I have no affiliation with JJF either. So I don't see how deletion on the WP:PROMO grounds would apply here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Nug has pointed out, the creation of this article based mainly on Smelser and Davies could be construed as pointy. Does Feldgrau.net deserve an article? Because it gets more coverage in Smelser and Davies than Fedorowicz does. Srnec (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feldgrau.com could be notable. It is described in World War II on the Web: A Guide to the Very Best Sites as "the most comprehensive online resource on the history of the German military between 1919 and 1945". Combined with the extensive coverage in Smelser & Davies, I'd say it would be sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that imply that coffman considers feldgrau.com a reliable source, or merely a notable one? It would be good to see an updated edition of that interesting book (thanks for including the link) since there has been a lot of addition (and dare I say improvement) of information on the internet in the 13 years since it was published. Not that its of consequence, myself just being an ignorant newbie writer Philby NZ (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable and notable are two different things. It is interesting, though, that K.e.coffman thinks mention World War II on the Web plus several pages in Smelser and Davies is enough for a website to garner notability. I think far too much weight is being placed on a single work (Smelser and Davies). It's a reliable source, sure, and from the looks of it very good, though I haven't read more than a few passages on GoogleBooks. But it has a narrow, specific purpose (like most academic books). Without reading the whole book and with no other sources to help back them up, it is difficult to know if Smelser and Davies' assessment ("one of the leading romancers' presses" and "to be published through Fedorowicz is to have arrived") is relevant to our notability criteria. Srnec (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fedorowicz is well known within its niche, and in the scholarly community that studies the Waffen-SS, and especially its post-war image as propagated by HIAG and others. The search for -- Waffen-SS Fedorowicz revisionism -- returns some interesting results:

German Counterinsurgency in the Balkans: The Prinz Eugen Division by Melson, Charles D ...www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13518040701703195?src=recsys "... despite claims of apologists or revisionists. ..... (Winnipeg: J.J. Fedorowicz, 1995)" -- can't see more, but the 1995 title being referred to is most likely Otto Kumm's 1995 Prinz Eugen: The History of the 7. SS-Mountain Division from Fedorowicz
The South African Military History Society article: "Veterans' attempts to de-stigmatise the reputation of the armed SS are dealt with by Hausser, Steiner, Meyer, Weidinger, and Grupp & Oehmsen", with the last three being Fedorowicz pubs.
The 1994 article from Historical Methods magazine "Visiual Historical Methods", p. 170, discussing the attempts by the Waffen-SS veterans to rehabilitate its image. "Since 1950s, they have attempted to reestablish the Waffen-SS mythos (...). This work takes the form of unit histories, memoirs and combat reminiscences, all arguing that the organisation ... held duties that were purely military—above all, fighting the Russian threat." The book references are two Fedorowicz titles, Strassner on the SS Division Wiking & Lehmann on the SS Division Leibstandarte, plus Paul Hausser, which is available in German only.

What appears clear from the above is that, while JJF licensed its "lighter" fare, i.e. Kurowski, to Stackpole and others, the Waffen-SS divisional histories remain a Fedorowicz exclusive. For example, Strassner is only available through Fedorowicz or Munin-Verlag in Germany, according to Worldcat. So the company will continue to be cited in scholarly works that discuss or use these publications. Being the sole English-language source of these works adds to Fedorowicz' notability as a publisher, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is relevant to the AfD. It is tangential at the very best reading of it (someone mentioned a book that was published by this company). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Appearance in GBooks is liable to depend on copyright issues. I note that a number of their authors have WP articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERITORG: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it". --Nug (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite -- a publisher exercises editorial control on what they choose to publish; so authors are important here. The authors also contribute to publisher's reputation: university presses (i.e. University Press of Kentucky) publish scholarly, peer reviewed works; reference publishers (i.e. ABC-CLIO) produce encyclopedias; certain militaria publishers issue revisionist and apologist books (as is the case with Fedorowicz), picture albums for modeling enthusiasts and other specialty publications; etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? So Fedorowicz only selects those German veterans that want to write revisionist and apologist books, and if a veteran's draft isn't revisionist and apologist enough they will not publish it? I don't think so. Fedorowicz likely found a profitable North American niche market in translating and publishing the memoirs of German veterans, providing an unabridged perspective of their role in WW2. I seriously doubt the degree of revisionism exhibited by particular authors was a consideration of the publisher. Don't confuse the world view of some veterans with the world view of the publisher, equally the notability of the publisher does not derive from the notability of some veterans. --Nug (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What makes a publisher notable is producing multiple notable books--for what else could they possibly be notable? NOT INHERITED means just the opposite of what is asserted above--it means that because aa publisher is notable, this does not imply that every book they publish is notable also. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are mis-interpreting WP:INHERITORG which explicitly states: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it". In any case, none of Fedorowicz's books are sufficiently notable to have their own wikipedia articles. --Nug (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2016 (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 hoax. After several searches I find absolutely no references or Google hits for the article subject or his supposed nickname "Woodfire Warhol." Also absolutely no hits for the 1967 book A Fire Burns Within My Soul: Art in the Conservative Midwest or the "popular children's television program" Can I Have Another? with Johnny Badger, both mentioned in the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Bishop

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

The topic is not sourced enough to merit an article on its own. A general search for sources does not bring up anything very convincing. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This feels suspiciously like a hoax. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single user (who has worked on nothing else), no cites, nothing on Google - I have to concur with J Milburn. Artw (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2016 (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. Sandstein 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kojima Keitaney Love

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

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 20:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:08, 15 December 2016 (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 Labor law. Some content could be merged from history subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 10:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace violation

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

Prodded several months ago. Prod removed with explanation left on talk page. However, the explanation doesn't really explain why this is notable in its own right. Currently doesn't have any reliable sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a legal term of art to encompass several issues, as listed in the article. Your results may vary, but it seems to have at least a few reliable sources. This concept is likely to prove useful in the next four years, as employment law evolves. I found several more sources at Google books and Google scholar. This stub needs work, not deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this is a defined legal term. The phrase is used fairly frequently, but in a haphazard and ill-defined manner. It is perhaps used most commonly to refer to OSHA workplace safety issues and to wage-and-salary issues. However, it is unclear whether it relates to violation of statutes, regulations, ordinances, company policies or norms of social behavior. Also, it is unclear whether it relates to safety, pay, drug use, etc. Note that the references refer to "workplace" and "violat*" used somewhere in the article, but not necessarily the phrase itself and that should be notable and well-defined in its own right. I think this fails the prohibitions against neologism and WP being used as a dictionary.--Rpclod (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to v:Wikiversity as part of the school of business or business law. Michael Ten (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rpclod - fails notability as a topic of its own at this time. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to labor law I'm not convinced that this is quite the term of art that Bearian suggests. In addition to what RPclod points out, a search of allstate/allfed on Westlaw turns up only about 230 mentions of the phrase for all time. The term does not appear in Black's Law Dictionary either. I don't see a distinction between the topics that are or could be covered in this article and the ones that are covered in labor law. agtx 21:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would go along with a smerge. I'd like to keep the sources. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2016 (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. MER-C 03:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Chinese Economics

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

Article created by COI editor. PRODded with reason "Non-notable, relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator without reason stated. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete if randykitty says is not a not notable journal, it is not notable. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable journal. -- Dane ^talk 01:20, 14 December 2016 (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. Almost all of the provided sources contain very superficial and incidental coverage of the subject, not enough to establish notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael E. Jones

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

The reliable sources - New York Times - which appears to partially covering the subject. News search and book search doesn't have proper mention of the surgeon. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any significant coverage —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found some sources about him in notable news. [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] - Mar11 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep a quick check finds a couple sources BobLaRouche (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete who ever wrote this said that Jones "pioneered "ethnic rhinoplasty". I searched pubmed:

PMID 26616712 (a 2016 review called "Rhinoplasty in the African American Patient: Anatomic Considerations and Technical Pearls" gives him no such credit.

PMID 26616700 (a 2016 review called "Reshaping of the Broad and Bulbous Nasal Tip") gives him no such credit.

PMID 25049123 (a 2014 review called "African American rhinoplasty.") gives him no such credit.

seems this article is here for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Variation 25.2 (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources provided by Mar11 are notable. A quick search finds a couple of sources on google. Variation 25.2 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yep he is a celebrity doctor and there are some hyping refs but that doesn't necessarily lead to N. Jones is marginally notable at best and with the promotional pressure of celebrity-doctornhood this will be a drain on community resources to keep neutral. Not Notable enough to be given those resources. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gar Oo Noon Ko

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

Non-notable writer, unsourced and likely WP:AUTOBIO article. Phyo WP (message) 15:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTOBIO isn't forbidden, but when your autobiography doesn't even make you seem any notable, chances are you aren't notable. Timmyshin (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like a good faith creation by someone who probably doesn't know too much about Wikipedia. That said, the subject doesn't seem to be satisfy GNG or WP:AUTHOR, so I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and unconvincing with the clear signs of no existing substance. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless sources exist in another language, does not seem to satisfy WP:GNG. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 01:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Sahand

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

I haven't been able to find more than one source required for passing WP:MUSICBIO. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BlackJackPlayer (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are some passing mentions of him so maybe it is a start to one day be notable. However, agree with nom, there is nothing in-depth to pass him now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Poduval

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

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn - This ended up getting waaaay too confusing so am closing however I'll leave it in articlespace where hopefully it'll be improved (or i'll do it at somepoint). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Hickson

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

This was moved to Draft in April where it ended up abandoned, I nominated it at MFD and was told to basically move it back and AFD it, Anyway non notable actress, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 03:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. The subject comes close to meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers dot point 1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", possibly does but the 2016 productions may be too recent. Information available to date appears better suited to IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6883785/). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information available to date appears better suited to IMDB - meaning the information from current sources doesn't satisfy the WP:GNG, all of the information is appropriate for IMDB. New sources may make the subject notable, and on recreation, the current information here being deleted can be found in the IMDB refrences. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd say that being one of the main actors (leading characters) in a mainstream TV series (Aftermath (2016 TV series)) makes them close to passing the above criteria, but the problem is the multiple requirement. The two other main roles she had are in movies that have not been deemed notable yet, at least in so far as nobody bothered to create Wikipedia articles on them. If someone thinks one of those two movies is notable, she would probably classify, and I'd change my vote to weak keep (ping me if you make an argument for movie notability and I'll reconsider my vote). PS. If the creator bothers to participate in the discussion (sadly, unlikely as this seems like write-and-run case), we could also consider usefying it, given that it is a likely case of WP:TOOSOON; she'll probably be notable in a year or two when she gets another important role. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was unilaterally userfied from the mainspace, or else I'd take a position like I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Cutforth (3rd nomination). I'm not sure it is acceptable to move a page to the mainspace and directly proceed to nominate it for deletion even given the circumstances.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well with the greatest of respect once someone at MFD puts keep that's it - It's kept! regardless of what the nominator has to say so to save me and SJ arguing with each other over it and essentially having my time wasted I listened to him and sent it here, I wasn't putting up a fight when admins at MFD don't give a crap about the deletion rationale anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 14:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On 22 April 2016, it should not have been unilaterally draftified, it should have been nominated at AfD. Davey has appropriately corrected the situation.

For reference, User:Oshwah's 07:37, 22 April 2016‎ move summary was:

"Article is imcomplete, and I have notability concerns (see talk page). Moving to draft space will be less WP:BITEy compared to tagging."

and his Talk:Taylor Hickson post was:

" This person doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I'm iffy about WP:ACTOR, since she did act in some major films (although I'm not sure if she played "major roles" as WP:ACTOR requires). The only two sources I've located are this and this. Article is obviously created by an editor with COI issues as well. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)"

The BITE concerns are best addressed by talking to the author on their talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But weak keep. The first and second references in the article provide secondary source material directly discussing the subject. These references seem reputable reliable and independent, though I am not familiar with them. This might be well revisited in a couple of years, per Piotr. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2016 (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Escape (2017 film)

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

No references provided in the article. I checked Google news and could not come up with a single news related to this film. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Chinese version of the article has two solid sources discussing the film; filming started last May in Hong Kong. [60], [61]. Google Translate changes the name to "Comparative Study" but you can see the Chinese characters are identical. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 01:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Мандичка's findings. Мандичка, is there an IMDb page for this movie? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Despite a lack of English citations, there are certainly Chinese sources available, so I'd say that it'd be more beneficial for the article to have more references rather than for it to be outright deleted. @Erik: After I did a search, this movie doesn't have an IMDb page yet. –Matthew - (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JJC

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

Almost entirely unsourced BLP with significant unsourced controversy section that contains accusations that are defamatory. Mduvekot (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have removed the unsourced controversy section per WP:BLP. Mz7 (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Completely unsourced and non-notable individual. Tiller54 (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Practically no independent coverage, all the coverage seems to be related to his marriage to Funke Akindele. I would suggest redirecting to that article. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2016 (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.

Aditya Puri

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG: three sources are affiliated (HDFC bank), only independent source is about the bank itself and not him. Notability is not inherited, whether it's from a bank or a daughter.~~ Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. HDFC Bank’s Aditya Puri only Indian on Fortune’s top bizmen list

http://m.hindustantimes.com/business-news/hdfc-bank-s-aditya-puri-only-indian-on-fortune-s-top-bizmen-list/story-V8pzePys9JpQP290rK4IZP.html --Anamdas (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. MMall124 (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

updated Awards section. Please review.--Anamdas (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm wondering if the nominator searched for sources outside of the article at all, as one is supposed to do before nominating. This article from Forbes Asia would probably be enough to show notability per WP:GNG, there is also, for example, this and this, also articles on his salary, his bank, 5000 hits on Google News and 370 hits on Google Books, some of which seem to have non-trivial coverage. That's not even going into sources in Hindi, which I can not assess, but I am absolutely sure are numerous. Hell, the Indian banking regulator seems to have changed their rules on mandatory retirement age just so that this guy could keep working. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, withdrawn. Sources need to be added, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the lack of input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction in Stereo

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

I couldn't find independent reliable published sources to demonstrate notability for this album. Unless someone else has more success, the title should likely be redirected to the band article, No Trigger. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 18:09, 8 December 2016 (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requisition

AfDs for this article:

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

Though it uses many words (mostly unnecessary words in my opinion), the article is nothing more than a dictionary entry and should be deleted per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A Wiktionary entry exists here, and I think that all the verbose explanations contribute little to the the understanding of the term. In the last nomination (more than 8 years ago) a consensus wasn't reached, hopefully this time the result will be different. WannaBeEditor (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article as it stands only deals with business requisitions - this should be expanded to discuss the legal usage, which is much more notable.[62] —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: Your comment pretty much contributes nothing to the discussion. No one is arguing whether the page is notable, the page simply has no standing, it is a simple dictionary entry. WannaBeEditor (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how AfD works. We are here to determine whether or not the TOPIC is notable; the present state of the page is totally irrelevant. Please take time to review the WP:Deletion Policy and criteria for deletion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, though it might better be renamed to Purchase requisition which currently redirects to the article. Legal requisition is a different thing altogether, and should have a separate article, as should Military requisition: all three topics are notable with many reliable sources available. I have added 3 sources to the article: as Wikimandia says, notability does not depend on what is currently in an article, but on what is reliably stated about the topic in the world outside. The concept and practice of requisition is extremely well established in business, and documented in plentiful (not to say boring) detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that "purchase requisition" as it stands is very similar to purchase order. I don't mind three articles as long as the sources are there on unique notability. If so, this will need some adjusting in Wikidata as the articles on requisition in other languages mainly refer to the legal term or a combination of legal/military. Thanks for adding sources Chiswick. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. However, the PR and the PO are very different. Somebody in, say, the carpentry department issues a PR for more nails. The purchase department approves the PR and issues a PO to the hardware supplier. The carpentry dept is not able to issue a PO, and the purchase dept is not allowed to issue a PO until it receives a valid PR. We could handle both with an article Purchase process but that would be a different kind of article. It would cover the supplier's invoice, delivery, and payment also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, it seems you understand that part better than me. If you want to divide into separate articles and can find the sources, that would be super helpful. Thanks! —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mostly unsourced dicdef. If notable, individual article about specific types of requisition can be started. Sandstein 14:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article, even as improved, and even the topic itself seems to live somewhere between WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Either way, while it may certainly belong somewhere, it doesn't belong here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- Well, I guess you guys are right (is one allowed to admit such a thing at AfD?). I am sure there is a notable topic here for Purchase process, which includes animals like purchase requisition from the carpentry department and purchase order from central purchasing. I don't think that military requisition is part of the same article, the only common ground being dicdef, indeed. Purging all that and changing the article's name constitutes writing a new article, which I might do if I was extremely bored one afternoon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 01:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Leary (actor)

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

Delete as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 21:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing a role for more than 20 years on the longest-running drama on television in American history is a strong claim of notability. The article needs expansion, not deletion, and there are ample reliable and verifiable sources available to be added to this article to support the strong claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient coverage exists in mainstream publications to attest notability,[63], [64], [65] in addition to all the Soap Opera Digest-type coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:13, 27 November 2016 (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 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gift to the Greedy

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

Sourced almost exclusively from unreliable sources and personal websites, this ephemeral NN band fails WP:MUSIC going away. Great, so they got a single review in the Washington Post, but that's not enough to meet the GNG. Ravenswing 05:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Insufficient coverage in RS. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:25, 5 December 2016 (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 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Beckham

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

Those AfD voters wont to decide based on 5-second superficial glances at article might say "Whoa, well sourced!" Actually review the sources, and they're a heap of blogposts and one-paragraph press release "reviews" of a band the subject was in (generally not mentioning the subject at all). Fails WP:MUSIC going away, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 05:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Static Television

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable TV program tagged since July 2008. The single keep vote in the first AfD leads to it being closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 20:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 27 November 2016 (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 2005 in sports. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2005 in sports

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

Delete. There are many more of these monthly statistical sporting summaries but I'm putting this one forward as a "test case", so to speak. This concept, never mind this article, is surely a massive breach of WP:IINFO, especially of WP:NOTSTATS. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are other articles in the series, such as September 2005 in sports, where the same rationale would apply. They could be moved to Portal pages such as Portal:Sports/September 2005, similar to Portal talk:Thailand/November 2005#Requested move and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11#Using archives of Portal:Current events for month articles, but I am not sure whether such moves would actually occur. The phrase "never mind" in the second sentence means the same thing as "much less" or "let alone". GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2005 in sports. BlackJackPlayer (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—UY Scuti ^Talk 16:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2005 in sports. It's more useful to have the list sorted by sport than by month. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:15, 28 November 2016 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USA Freedom Kids

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Only assertion of notability is performing at a Trump rally in January 2016. No repeat performances, no additional coverage. Oh, they sued Trump's campaign for allegedly not getting paid, yawn… Maybe give them a linge in Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 per WP:1E? — JFG ^talk 15:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC) — JFG ^talk 15:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. You can yawn all you want, but a search for "USA Freedom Kids" at Google yields more than 45,000 results, and sources are not all about the July rally performance. I actually think this could be a nice little Good article if we decide to expand the article instead of delete.

Sources:

I think there is plenty of coverage and vote to keep the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is sure plenty of coverage, but it's all linked to the campaign. Still WP:1EVENT in my book, may deserve a line or two in the campaign article or in Legal affairs of Donald Trump if the lawsuit gets some followup. (With all due respect to the girls, I actually saw them perform in one of those rally videos at the time, their notability comes only from this.) — JFG ^talk 21:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But not all coverage is about their rally performance. They've released an album and singles, been profiled and parodied, sued Trump, etc. They were also named one of 45 Americans Who Defined the Election. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Can you please bring examples of major media coverage beyond that campaign event. Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding refs to the article off ad on. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep this group did go viral during the campaign; it was a moment. I had forgotten them completely, maybe I never even noticed this at the time, but, clearly, they has a moment. plus the lawsuit (full disclosure: I actually know someone who runs a business Trump stiffed).E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per American Believer. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is not quite right, but I am American so I'll play along... :p ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability requirements.LM2000 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Bodimeade

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable actress, Can't find anything source-wise (I've even looked on Wiltshire News where 4 news articles come up and 2/3 of which confirm she was in Summerhill), Apart from that there's nothing at all on her, Personally I believe the article should be redirected to Summerhill as that was her most notable role to date however I'll leave that up to the community, Anyway fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 15:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As with the last AfD in which this topic was unanimously kept, she does pass WP:ENT, particularly with the significant coverage and her starring role in the series Paradise Café. The difference now is she's since been nominated for a Maverick Movie Award, thus further establishing notability.[66]--Oakshade (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest of respect and I really do mean this in a nice way ... but AFD back then was piss poor to say the least, It wasn't as strict as it is today but I'm by no means dismissing the AFD, Anyway that aside there is no significant coverage - IMDB cannot be used as a source (sure it confirms things but we still cannot use it), As I said I've found a handful that confirms her role in Summerhill but nothing on any other of the tv programmes/films. –Davey2010^Talk 02:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have been doing this stuff since 2006 and AfD was pretty tough in 2009. Anyway, not sure what you're talking when you say the Wiltshire News only confirms she was in Summerhill, or there's "nothing at all on her" when one of their articles goes into detail about her and her starring role in Paradise Café which would make redirecting to Summerhill nonsensical. [67] It appears there are now dead links to further articles about her, but that doesn't mean the coverage magically never existed and GNG makes it clear that non-online sources are acceptable. --Oakshade (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have to respectfully disagree on that but moving on, I had come across that on my searches so not sure why I never said but anyway the article cannot rely on that one source (technically it can but it'll only be sent back here anyway), I never expect all sources to be online however simply saying they're offline is just a wild guess - There may be absolutely nothing offline all for we know. –Davey2010^Talk 13:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of sufficient coverage in reliable sources, only an article or two in small local newspapers, which can be considered to be routine coverage. That means it relies on meeting WP:ENT, specifically a prominent role in two notable series. Summerhill seems to be notable, but I am not convinced by Paradise Café. Our Wikipedia article seems to be by far the most that anyone online has written about that show. There is no evidence at all that the show is notable (has received more than routine coverage) and the article should be nominated for its own AfD. By extension, the actor is not notable, probably a simple case of WP:TOOSOON. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2016 (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 List of Regular Show episodes. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mordecai and the Rigbys

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

Much like "The Unicorns Have Got to Go", the subject's significance is not indicated, and from an online search, the subject doesn't seem to be notable enough to warrant its own article. –Matthew - (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Regular Show episodes. Nothing independently notable here. Deli nk (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2016 (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 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aiplex Software

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

Clear and blatant advertising with nothing here but what the company would advertise about itself, and naturally that's what other sources I found are saying, and quite blatantly at it, therefore also considering we know articles and subjects of this nature are going to have blatant paid advertising, there's simply nothing else to consider, simply see the history for the multiple company-involved accounts (especially Airplexsoftwarebangalore and Aiplex12). There's literally nothing else to suggest anything else especially beyond this blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It seems to be difficult to find current information--tey don't seem to have updated their web site since 2012, But there are two substantial references: 1. ' "10 Facts Everyone Should Know About Anonymous" 'Collective Evolution October 22, 2016 [68] (a site I am not familiar with) contains in a long well-written article 2 good paragraphs of how this firm used Anonymous's techniques. The section starts "This Indian company worked on behalf of the record industry and the movie industry. They launched attacks to sink websites that provided copyrighted content, like The Pirate Bay...." and "Rival 'fakes' website & e-mail ID of anti-piracy firm, lures away clients Deccan Herald Nov 16, 2016, DHNS [69],( a not very reliable source), but a good article awhich makes clear that this is the principal company at least in India,. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:MILL company with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent justification of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom Light2021 (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manta (web site)

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

Article about a business directory web site, sourced only to press releases, and I can't find any secondary coverage, only more PRs and some mentions in blogs and review sites. It has been tagged for sources since 2012. It was written pretty much like an advertisement as well, but I have removed some of the more promotional text so that is not a concern, but the notability issues remain and can't be fixed by simply rewriting the article. bonadea contributions talk 09:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 27 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Datta Kondiba Mirkute

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

Delete. Fails GNG and non-notable person. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and specifically WP:BIO. There is some very weak interview sourcing but no notability or news to be found at this point. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not properly sourced. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 17:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Popara (album)

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

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM and apart from the claim After the release of this album, Popi Maliotaki had great success and recognise, no claim to fame made. I performed google search and failed to find if the album made it to any country's national music chart. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM and claim to fame has no verifiable source I am able to locate. Unable to locate sufficient evidence of sales. I might suggest a merge but the album is already listed with content in the artists article. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third and final relist. Only one person has added their input in this discussion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not sure~~ it's not easy assessing Greek sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pretty clear that this was a chart success in Greece. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navaneetha Krishnan

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

Delete. Fails GNG. Non-notable entrepreneur and page appears to be promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is the co-founder of one of the renowned and recognized marketplaces of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becktea (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company Voonik has a page, the other co-founder Sujayath Ali has a page and Navaneetha has been covered in several publications online about his journey with Voonik and entrepreneurship. So the page must stay. Angreza (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Re-listing for the third time because the participants of the discussion have not added anything further to the deletion discussion and haven't provided any sources for their arguments. st170e^talk 01:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Social & Economic Studies (ISES)

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

Delete. Non-notable NGO, fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 4 December 2016 (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanika Tiwari

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject did not do even one film as a lead actor. Done a supporting in just one film. The article is not neutral. Not much sources in the news as well. The article may be recreated if the subject gain popularity in the future. Failure WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk mail) 06:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk

mail) 06:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk

mail) 06:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject has appeared in lead in more than one film (Tamil film - Aavi Kumar, Telugu film - Boy Meets Girl). Has acted into multiple films, [70]. I don't see any tone issue that cannot be fixed by a simple edit. There are sufficient sources - (see WP:INDAFD, in particular 'Find resource' section). Available sources suggest that she is already popular. @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Is there anything left unanswered? If not, withdraw nomination and WP:CLOSEAFD. Thank you. Anup [Talk] 12:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more lead role in Kannada film - Rangan Style. I also re-wrote the article. Anup [Talk] 13:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Anup. Jay (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Anup. Already starred in major films and there's even English language coverage from the likes of News18 India and Times of India about an actress known in the Tamil-speaking world. The WP:TOOSOON train has already left the station. --Oakshade (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which is sufficient to establish notability as per GNG. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject passes WP:NACTOR as she has acted as lead in multiple films. Pratyush (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Full Participation

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

Appears to be a defunct group of disability rights groups? Website has gone dead. Gets passing mention in a few Google search results, but certainly doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP (no secondary source coverage. no independent source coverage). Ajpolino (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 27 November 2016 (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 Ralph Bates. Per Deb (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Bates (actress)

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

Non notable actress, All sources point to Daisy Bates (civil rights activist) however searching "Daisy Bates actress" brings up one mention, There's 2 sources in the article - One is IMDB and one is some CV, no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - she was certainly quite well known at one time as a child actress, when her father was alive, but I haven't heard anything about her in recent years. Deb (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But then wouldn't that be a WP:NOTINHERITED issue ?, If you take away her dad would she be remembered or even known ?, Anywho having relooked at the article I guess it could be redirected to Kavanagh QC as that's her most notable role, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct in saying that she would never have been well-known if her father had not been a well-known TV actor. The places where she was mentioned would mostly have been places like TV magazines and other ephemera. I suppose it's comparable with someone like Brooklyn Beckham. So probably the best thing would be to redirect to Ralph Bates. Deb (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if substantial stuff pops up then the redirect can always be reverted :), I have no objections to that target either :), Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a career made up of one-pisode television apparances and bit parts in movies is just not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Unscintillating (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Her career apparently peaked before the internet became popular, but there are many sites that host digital archives, such as Google and Highbeam Research. There doesn't seem to be anything there except coverage of the more famous civil rights activist. If someone can locate offline coverage, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we don't delete articles because they fail WP:GNG, and while the difference between WP:GNG and WP:Deletion policy can in some cases be implied; not only is this not one of those cases, consensus exists that non-notability is not a deletion argument here. Unscintillating (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The evidence available at this AfD, which matches my own searches, is that the topic is not Wikipedia notable. Further, the evidence available is that WP:Deletion policy is not applicable. Unscintillating (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2016 (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. Closing this as keep due to consensus amongst the participants. I feel that a third re-list would not generate further discussion. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Swazi Sun Hotel

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

No proof this hotel is notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added ~~two~~ three references regarding its history as well as the regional and economic importance. These sources were easily available and I hope the nominator will follow WP:BEFORE next time. I would expect that an article on a "major entertainment complex" in a Western country that lacked inline citations would be expanded, not nominated for deletion. We should be aware of Wikipedia's systematic bias.--TM 18:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LexisNexis search reveals a few hits but NewsBank which has more African content has over 600 hits (when "golf" is excluded, there are 200). Took me a while to get through all of those, and the vast majority are marginal mentions, but notability is clear: for example, this is where the current king's coronation was announced to the press, it was a key integrated resort during Apartheid (as opposed to the notorious 'ain't gonna play Sun City' about its cousin hotel), and this is the hotel where international organizations and conferences meet at when they are in the country. Keep. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:47, 4 December 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 02:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Steglitz shooting

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

Delete. Article about a fairly standard murder-suicide, with no evidence whatsoever of sustained notability. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and not an exhaustive directory of every criminal incident that ever happened at all — for something like this to warrant a Wikipedia article, there would have to be some evidence that it passes the ten-year test for significance. I'll grant that this was probably a good faith creation at the time, as it occurred just four days after the more clearly notable 2016 Munich shooting — but the article has been edited just once since the initial flurry of edits in the first few hours after the incident hit the paper, and even that edit was just a simple category change. Every criminal incident that happens at all is not automatically a valid article topic just because of the inevitable first burst of breaking news coverage itself — for a criminal incident to warrant an article, there has to be some evidence of sustained notability for more than just the fact that it happened. But with just a single statement that it occurred and just a single piece of breaking news coverage to support it, there's simply nothing like that here. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very brief article about a garden variety murder-suicide of no encyclopedic value, although tragic for the families of the victims. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a random killing, elderly patient bizarrely killing his doctor and then himself. No follow-up trial, major investigation or ties to terrorism. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:39, 27 November 2016 (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 that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pubali Sanyal

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

Non notable. Failure to cite reliable source to prove notability. WP:TOOSOON Mar11 (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NACTOR. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of a WP:GNG pass Spiderone 10:59, 11 December 2016 (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. Sourcing is not of a significant enough nature to verify notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Boyle

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

Non-notable bio. Full of advertisement and POV. No citation. I can find in google news search either. Mar11 (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this person is as significant as the article claims, there would be some sources out there. There aren't. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are awards mentioned on the page - all but one accolade currently unsourced, but that hints to me that if good research is done, that might be verifiable. Sources like this good for that: [71]. Also some other nice coverage online, first a full-length feature in the BBC [72], and some more minor coverage uncovered in a few minutes of google searching: [73], [74], [75], etc. Yvarta (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- The few minor awards might just make him notable, but the article has the feel of ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not good enough and it very clear is all about promoting the subject. We require sources to be about the subject - tangential mentions in the context of something else are not useful as notability is not inherited.

BBC This is not a "profile" about Simon Boyle. The article is about Unilever's Innovation Centre and the subject happened to be the one giving the journalist a tour.
bighospitality.co.uk Passing mention about an award of doubtful notability.
Telegraphy restaurant review - A passing mention. In any case, restaurant reviews are not useful.
Bigissue.com Passing mention in the context of a charity and the article seems to have been sourced to a press release by the charity itself
Timeout.com blog Sorry, but this is a blog and not useful for notability.
Guardian blog Similar to above. Although Guardian is a reliable source, the blogs are not so much secondary coverage as opinion of the posters. This post seems to be sourced to primary sources.

Overall, I guess this is WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it meets the first criterion of WP:ANYBIO. I see Boyle as notable for two main accomplishments: the People's Choice Award and being on the editorial board of a notable magazine. Icebob99 (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aomusic

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

Part of a promotional walled garden created by a pair of single purposes accounts. Non notable band. Only claims to satisfying WP:BAND seems to be charting (but they are on bad charts) and by having three blue linked members but for two their notability is dependent of the bands they are part of, including this one. So the are not "independently notable musicians". With few exceptions the bombardment of sources is PR, listings and Zone Music Reporter. Their charts are not good charts and they don't provide any coverage about this band. The Soundonsound piece [76] does not mention aomusic and is a Wikipedia:Fictitious references. They have a short allmusic bio ans one of their albums has a short review. Not enough. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any evidence of notability. Sam Walton (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 04:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gannaway

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

Part of a promotional walled garden created by a pair of single purposes accounts. Non notable musician. His notability is entirely dependent of being a member of two blue linked bands but they are both at afd. With few exceptions the bombardment of sources is PR, listings, about others and Zone Music Reporter. Their charts are not good charts and they don't provide any coverage about this individual. The Soundonsound piece [77] does not mention him or aomusic and is a Wikipedia:Fictitious references. michaeldiamondmusic.com is a wordpress blog, not an independent reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 04:08, 27 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antiblavers

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 04:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply fails at both WP:GNG and WP:WEB Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 5 December 2016 (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. Sandstein 10:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tourball

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

Cannot find any secondary sources and the only reference is a dead link. Does not meet notability requirement for games or sports. Rogermx (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Possible hoax. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:07, 13 December 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 02:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of corporations in the United States

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

Category:Companies_of_the_United_States is absolutely enormous with many layers of nested subcategories, so this article will never be near complete and has no selection criteria that would make it useful. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - beyond useless. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as dupe —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:48, 27 November 2016 (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. The consensus is on keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McQuillin

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

No signs of this person being notable, per WP:SCHOLAR. Nothing about his research making any significant impact on further research related to his study area. Members of many geological societies, like any geologist in the UK. Almost the entire article is unsourced, including the whole section of Academic Appointments. Mymis (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A few good cites on GS and prominent contribution to geophysics industry. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC),[reply]

Some contribution to societies is not enough and everything related to geophysics industry is unsourced. Mymis (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Holding a senior position in British Geological Survey should be sufficient to make him notable. I suspect sources will be readily available in Who's who. This is not an academic appointment, so that lists of scholarly publications are not to be expected. The article is probably still only a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources in the article proving that he had any senior positions. Mymis (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think deputy director of the BGS is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source that proves it. Mymis (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't like the absence of in depth coverage in reliable sources, but he seems to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC C3, as he is an elected fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (and that is sourced) and a fellow of the Geological Society of London, both of which seem to be selective enough. Thus, notability is implied. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These societies give away "fellow" titles to hundreds of people every year, and they have like 15,000 fellows in total just for the one based in London. And let's say the article is kept, then it means that 90% of information must be removed as it is simply unsourced. I tried to look for any sources, but there are simply none to prove most of the statements. For instance, the article includes the birth date, wife's name and number of kids etc that cannot be found anywhere, suggesting that the article was written by a relative or the person himself. Mymis (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was more reliant on the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which awards ~50 fellows, with 1500 fellows in total, which is consistent with other societies considered as selective. And I am merely addressing notability (the lack of which is a reason for deletion), I am not defending unsourced information. If it has no sources, it should be removed, even if it's a stub left afterwards. No longer a penguin (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has held a number of important positions, academic appointments, written articles and books. Certainly seems notable Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2016 (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.

Great Fatherland Party

The result was Withdrawn by nom. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Russian political party. Nearly all ghits are about the chairman of the party who makes the news occasionally, but of course WP:NOTINHERITED. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has sufficient coverage about the actual party.[78], [79], [80] They don't have any seats in the Duma but they have won several at the municipal level ie mayors. The reason why there are so many hits on the co-chairman Nikolai Starikov is that he famous and controversial. The Russian version was nominated for deletion in August but appears to be politically motivated - every response on the discussion page is in favor of keeping it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I cannot read Russian but I trust your judgment. Withdraw. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2016 (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. There's three basic themes represented (in more or less equal weights) in the discussion: 1) he's not notable, 2) yes he is, and 3) he's not notable but his book is, and this is more about the book than the person. So, I'm going to call this No Consensus, but I'll also suggest that perhaps a good way forward would be to rename and rework this to be about the book (and leave a redirect behind). After somebody has done that rewrite, if people still feel it's not meeting WP:GNG and/or WP:BOOKCRIT, no prejudice against bringing it back here for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J. Dworkin

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

Nothing in the article to show how this author is notable. Worldcat doesn't appear to substantiate a claim for notability either. Although was de-prodded with the rationale that Worldcat did. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Dworkin considers these questions as he uncovers the story behind Burns's mythmaking works. A long-overdue biography of a writer who shaped our idea of Western history, American Mythmaker documents in fascinating detail the fashioning of some of the greatest American legends"^[1]

American Mythmaker: Walter Noble Burns and the Legends at books.google.com^[2] User:Wamills —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a Google search, I see no evidence that Dworkin is notable. However, his biography of Walter Noble Burns, published by the University of Oklahoma Press, is certainly a good source for expanding that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep “American Mythmaker is a book for the ages, an important and much-needed roadmap to that place where, because of Walter Noble Burns, western history and storytelling met in an indelible way. It’s a tribute to author and historian Mark J. Dworkin that we learn how and why the legends we love to believe were crafted, without our losing any sense of their addictive frontier magic.”—Jeff Guinn, author of The Last Gunfight: The Real Story of the Shootout at the O.K. Corral—And How It Changed the American West^[3] User:Wamills

References

Wikipedia keeps or deletes articles based on the degree to which the person is or isn't the subject of reliable source coverage in media. We do not keep articles because of how complimentary a reviewer might have been in a jacket blurb, or because Google Books provides nominal verification that the book exists. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move (Redirect) - to American Mythmaker and tweak - almost the entire content of the article is about the book, which I agree seems notable. I can't find anything about the author or his life except this short paid obituary. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply not enough here, the WorldCat collections are simply too trivial. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the "references" that have been provided certainly verify that the book exists, they do not count as reliable source coverage about him for the purposes of passing WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Notability is not synonymous with merely existing — a writer gets an article when real media are writing about him, not just because his book happens to have a primary source sales profile on an online bookstore or an entry in WorldCat. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move (Redirect) - to American Mythmaker as suggested above and edit. The reviews satisfy WP:BOOKCRIT #1. See, e.g. [81], [82] and [83]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Testimonials and passing mentions aren't enough for WP:GNG or any other kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 12:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

marginal keep his book American Mythmaker was widely and respectfully reviewed and cited, that and his other work combinr, I think, to produce a sufficient degree of notability as an historian and author, albeit of a period and genre now out of fashion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2016 (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. Article and its sources fail to establish real-world notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are those

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

Non-notable neologism. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it's not a WP:NEOLOGISM but a meme and has surprising coverage (Washington Post, Time, etc). Article is terribly written but it seems to have the coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the sparse coverage qualifies for GNG; the idea smacks of RECENTISM. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would recommend that anyone who supports keeping this article clean up the citations. Currently most of the citations aren't associated with any particular fact or sentence in the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Not a major meme, but certainly seems to have some substantive references discussing it, in mainstream media. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill Internet meme. WP:NOTNEWS. Sandstein 13:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough coverage to make WP:N, and isn't a neologism. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUSTAINED. The article topic has been covered by enough reliable sources for a long enough period of time to be considered notable. Deletion by WP:NEOLOGISM only applies to "neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources." [84] [85] [86] Joshualouie711 (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism, and per WP:RECENTISM. It may have WP:RS, but that just makes it a well-sourced neoligism. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2016 (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.

List of vice heads of state of Bulgaria by longevity

The result was Withdrawn by nom. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if List of Vice Presidents of the United States by age is not WP:LISTCRUFT then neither is the Bulgarian equivalent. There are even U.S. versions for governors and TWO for senators (all time AND current!). The articles in the English Wikipedia on Bulgarian politics are extremely lacking and I don't see any compelling reason to delete this one. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Please withdraw the AfD. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2016 (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 Gentoo Linux. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funtoo Linux

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

Article lacks any third-party reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. Aoidh (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or maybe merge to Gentoo Linux. I'm actually a little surprised that there's so little coverage of it in reliable sources. I haven't edited Linux-related articles in a while now, so maybe I'm a bit out of practice in finding sources, but the best I could find were trivial mentions like Introducing Linux Distros (published by Apress). If someone else can find better sources, go ahead and ping me. But unless that happens, I think the best course of action is to redirect to Gentoo. We could probably find a bit of sourced commentary somewhere to briefly explain the drama. If not, well, it's already mentioned in Gentoo Linux#Popularity as a spinoff. So, it won't be a completely unexpected redirect that will confuse readers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above, deletion would bring no benefits for readers looking for the topic. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a terrible idea from a technical standpoint. If you redirect Funtoo to Gentoo you will effectively delete a lot of information that an average user needs: Funtoo has a different homepage^[1], GitHub page^[2], IRC channel^[3], forums^[4], subreddit^[5], and the Funtoo Compute Initiative^[6] that Gentoo lacks. While Funtoo might lack verifiable third-party sources, the main authority on the technical points is the distribution itself: Both Sabayon and Gentoo heavily rely on their own websites to provide that kind of information. And this is the main sticking point: Gentoo is not an authority on what constitutes Funtoo. Funtoo supports a different set of platforms^[7] than Gentoo^[8], and a different set of kernels^[9] compared to Gentoo^[10].Funtoo does not support systemd^[11]. Redirecting to Gentoo will add the weight of authority onto Gentoo: If you plan to redirect to Gentoo, where do you plan to add all the information Funtoo is an authority on?
From an editorial standpoint, managing such an arrangement is a lot more complicated. While Gentoo is Unix-like, Funtoo is Linux only: there's no FreeBSD kernel included with Funtoo, and there is no guide on how to create a FreeBSD environment on Funtoo, in contrast to Gentoo^[12]. All the issues that need to be resolved to make such an arrangement work are not worth the time and effort. And what happens when Funtoo and Gentoo start to differ even more? We will be forced to unmerge the articles again. Redirecting Funtoo to Gentoo will only create more confusion on what is different between the two.
I am willing to fix the article to the best of my abilities. The article needs almost a complete rewrite, and it lacks a lot of information about Funtoo. I am going to start working on it now, and I encourage reviews of any of the proposed changes, and I will share my reasoning on the talk page for the changes.
Bias warning: I currently use Funtoo Linux, but I am not a fanboy of any distribution. I use a variety of distributions in server and desktop environments. I have a vested interest in having accurate and reliable information on the strong and weak points of every distribution, rather than making any distribution look good.

References

^ Funtoo Homepage http://www.funtoo.org/Welcome
^ GitHub page https://github.com/funtoo
^ Freenode IRC channel https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=funtoo
^ Funtoo Forums http://forums.funtoo.org/
^ Funtoo subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/funtoo/
^ Funtoo Compute Initiative http://www.funtoo.org/Funtoo_Compute_Initiative
^ Funtoo platforms http://www.funtoo.org/Subarches
^ Gentoo platforms https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Prefix#Platform_matrix
^ Funtoo kernels http://www.funtoo.org/Funtoo_Linux_Kernels
^ Gentoo kernels https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Kernel
^ Funtoo does not support systemd http://www.funtoo.org/Funtoo_Linux_FAQ
^ Gentoo FreeBSD https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD

Brhenc (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of these references are reliable sources, none of them push the article towards meeting WP:GNG in any way. The issue isn't how the article is written, it's that the subject of the article itself is not notable. That's not something even rewriting from scratch would solve. - Aoidh (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed. I'd do it myself, but wanted there to be a response to the text above. In the absence of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) related to the subject, there is no basis for us to write a detailed article on the subject without delving into primary source original research. If there is something sourced to say about Funtoo, say it in its parent article and split it out summary style only when the sources warrant it. czar 05:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. MfD nomination is linked. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dominic Covey

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

Abandoned draft. Article was already successfully AfD'd. If subject is truly notable, then someone can recreate a draft or main space article if/when appropriate. Let's not save this draft forever. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please close this discussion. Comments should be made at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dominic Covey instead. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:07, 27 November 2016 (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baan Sinlapin

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

This building fails the notability guidelines. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable tourist attraction. See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Paul_012 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 200-year-old buildings are usually notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I read most of the references given and I believe there is enough coverage in RS for WP:GNG. I also did some minor improvements. Much more work is needed, but I feel the topic is notable. MB 03:11, 27 November 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian M. Arrigo

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Some coverage, but basically a local politician. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps I should have waited to publish until I added more information to the article. However, the mayor and the city of Revere have been at the focus of the state-wide issue of casinos and gambling in Massachusetts. The mayor was leading the campaign to defeat Massachusetts' Question 1 regarding a repeat of the issue in the 2016 Election. BostonUrbEx (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: BostonUrbEx (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Started adding relevant information. It may be a while for me to fully expand upon this without assistance. BostonUrbEx (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Mayor of small city of about 50k. There is coverage of the gambling issue in the Boston Globe, all from around Sep-Oct of 2016. Although the Boston Globe is a big paper, Revere is 5 miles from Boston and this is local coverage of a local news. He has been mayor since Jan and I didn't see any other coverage about anything else earlier in the year. MB 03:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revere borders Boston, and isn't 5 miles away. Part of a previous casino deal required cooperation between Boston and Revere, but Boston thoroughly rejected it, shifting all focus solely to Revere. The coverage of the issue you saw was a state issue. It was Question 1 on the state ballot, but impacted only Revere directly. There's also been coverage of the possibility for an Assembly Square type development which the mayor is pushing for at Wonderland, and possibly even at Suffolk Downs which could potentially be the largest single development in New England if that latter were to occur. Assembly is widely regarded as a major success in developing an entire neighborhood and in attracting traffic from the surrounding region. A similar project in scale, or larger, would be a major change in Revere's economic development and draw investment to the area. Again, it is all very preliminary, but it is drawing attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonUrbEx (talk • contribs) 09:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete existence of this article strikes of recentism. The flash in the pan coverage does not establish notability of the level to justify an article in an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Fails WP:POLITICIAN]. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - we have kept some (and deleted some) mayors of cities in the 50k range, as is this subject. Based on the ongoing controversy over gambling (addiction) in the Boston area, I'd lean towards keeping. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even though there is a current gambling controversy, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this seems to be one of the only things that is notable here. -- Dane ^talk 20:21, 9 December 2016 (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of excommunicable offences in the Catholic Church

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

This article is solely a dumping-ground for the full (translated) text of canons of Ecumenical Councils. No analysis or summary is being attempted. Nor is it wikified. It is unusable as a Wikipedia article. Elizium23 (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of notability or attempt at contributing notability, just a seemingly indiscriminate list of offenses. Parsley Man (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine how this could not be considered 'notable' given the obvious historic importance to these decrees in governing the Catholic church for millennia. In terms of wikifying the article or re-writing the canons to make them more readable- that is a problem that can be solved without deletion. It can also be broken into separate articles to make it more readable. I don't think it is necessary to add analysis, because it is supposed to be a list, and the articles already present on the topic of excommunication in Wikipedia already have analysis on the topic. Wikipedia has plenty of examples of articles that are lists only with little analysis, for example: List of amendments to the United States Constitution. This could not be put in wikisource, because it is only selected parts of the original sources and wikisource is meant for the full text of original sources. Reesorville (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is far too much detail to be useful to our readers, and appears to be a synthesis of sources. I'd be in favor of keeping a list if present-day, current offenses of these types. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The details could be edited down, the text simplified or rewritten, the article broken up in several pieces... there's many things that can be done. Those issues more properly belong on the article's talk page. But as far as deletion as concerned, these things don't qualify as reasons for it, I feel. To delete the article would mean that an article on this topic should not exist on wikipedia now or ever. The importance of these canons for church legal history, even the ones that are no longer applicable, is not small. Wikipedia has an article that lists the various laws passed by the Scottish parliament in the 17th century, which admittedly is of interest to very few people, but the article still properly belongs here because the topic is notable in legal history. Reesorville (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TRANSWIKI Transwiki to Wikiversity and categorize it as Theology. Cheers! Michael Ten (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can reconstruct the article into an educational source and put in on Wikiversity - the question though remains, why it is that wikipedia could not have this article also? - The issues being presented here about the article's quality are not related to deletion. Reesorville (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, how does this meet WP:LISTN? or WP:GNG?, where are the independent WP:RS that discusses this subject as a whole? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ps. article creator cites a couple of other lists, so why can't this be here but isn't that WP:OTHERSTUFF? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN (notability) and WP:GNG - the Roman Catholic church has nominally 1 billion members in the world today. It has had a massive influence on the history of both the west and the world in general. The rules regarding excommunications historically formed the core of its internal ecclesiastical discipline and law. How is it not notable to list the actual offences that were historically used to place people under excommunication? No one is here offering any credible argument as to why this wouldn't be counted as notable. Reesorville (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." - https://www.amazon.com/Excommunication-Catholic-Church-Edward-Peters/dp/1932645454/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480044165&sr=8-1&keywords=excommunication+in+the+catholic+church , https://www.amazon.com/Excommunication-Historical-Development-Effects-Studies/dp/0813222389/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1480044165&sr=8-7&keywords=excommunication+in+the+catholic+church, https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Canon-Law-Rev-Trudel/dp/1492935557/ref=sr_1_20?ie=UTF8&qid=1480044424&sr=8-20&keywords=excommunication+catholic+church, https://www.amazon.com/History-Courts-Procedure-Medieval-Canon/dp/0813229049/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1480044603&sr=8-3&keywords=history+of+church+law, https://www.amazon.com/History-Medieval-Classical-Period-1140-1234/dp/0813214912/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1480044636&sr=8-11&keywords=history+of+church+law Reesorville (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - per Reesorville - I don't see how you would not feel this could be notable, considering its huge historic significance and the power the Catholic church had/has over the lives of billions of people for millennia, and you look at this category which is nowhere near complete I'm sure. It needs improvement but I do not agree it is an "indiscriminate list of offenses." Disclosure: I'm not even Catholic. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS Also, seriously? "where are the independent WP:RS that discusses this subject as a whole"? "Excommunication in the Catholic Church" even has its own category on WorldCat - there are books dating to 1520 on the subject! [87] —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination just seems to be complaining about the state of the material but AFD is not cleanup. The topic is notable -- see Excommunication: Its Nature, Historical Development and Effects, for example -- and so our editing policy applies, "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Andrew D. (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhat reluctantly. Possibly Draftify, but I don't think we're quite in WP:TNT territory. It's undoubtedly a notable topic, but the manner of presentation/content is indeed a mess. Still, doesn't look like deletion is quite necessary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:LISTN, thanks to Reesorville for listing some publications that discuss this subject as a whole, and Wikimandia for their ps comment, btw, i added my "comment" to this as it appeared, superficially, to be drifting into WP:ITSOBVIOUS territory. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article needs work to explain the context behind the rules, but that can be solved by normal editing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but could certainly use cleanup and analysis from more secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom's concerns with the article are mostly valid, but these can be fixed by cleaning up the article rather than deleting it. Bradv 14:42, 29 November 2016 (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abba, Imo

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

Unable to verify the page's content and the vilallage lacks any kind of notablility Meatsgains (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. There is also a complete absence of references. This article has been up for nearly ten years but shows no signs of improvement to its name. Parsley Man (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a several sources online in which people describe themselves as being from Abba. There is also a widely replicated story about a king dying two days before inauguration in one of the communities of Abba. I added two references, one that defines the term, and a Nigerian government reference that shows the term being used officially. Anything else is an editing problem. Unscintillating (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I tried and failed to find an official government source a while ago, but found enough to indicate that the place existed and was likely officially recognized, and so was hesitant to vote delete. Thanks to Unscintillating's referencing, the subject now passes WP:GEOLAND standards. Cleanup needed but that's not the purpose of AFD. Antepenultimate (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added the coordinates from Google Maps where it's clearly marked - see screenshot http://imgur.com/a/cYz4o. It's clearly a place with plenty of references of people being from there. It may be a small town but it still qualifies. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:30, 27 November 2016 (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 that notability per WP:GNG is not established, independent of the subject's wishes. Sandstein 14:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Workman

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

Editing has been added which Angela Workman does not want on the page Beauty111 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am Angela Workman and I want this page removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauty111 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You created the page; see WP:G7. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7 does not apply here because the article has been substantially edited by others. Also, that the subject of an article objects to its content is decidedly not a satisfactory ground for deletion. Whether she is notable may be a different story. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been castigated by your editors for creating my own page, which I didn't realize I wasn't supposed to do, and now punished for wanting it removed. Can't win.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauty111 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In marginal cases there is a policy WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE which takes into account the wishes of the article's subject. I believe that the subject needs to raise a ticket by contacting info-en-q -at- wikimedia.org via email in order to prove their identity. Shritwod (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion Workman doesn't meet the notability criteria for writers (yet). Yintan 08:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient output and notability at this time [88]. Has additional films in the works [89], so may be sufficiently notable when The Zookeeper's Wife comes out in the spring of 2017, but perhaps not now. Could perhaps Userfy or Draftify until then. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a protocol sometimes used in WP:BLPPROD where the opinion of biography subjects is taken into account when proposing the deletion of a marginally notable subject, I believe it does require a verification of identity though. The subject in this case doesn't quite seem notable yet, but that may well change in the not-so-distant-future. Shritwod (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the subject wishes it (or WP:USERFY) but it is sad that this situation has arisen. I can't see that removing the article will do significant harm to WP. Because sometimes we cannot trust what people say about themselves (or even know with certainty who any editor really is) we have an invariable policy of reporting what has been published in "reliable sources" in preference to what the subject says is in fact the case. In some situations that leads to misunderstandings and unsatisfactory articles. Regarding balance, unfavourable opinions may sometimes be removed if they are unwarranted or they may be balanced with positive comment. See WP:UNDUE. Thincat (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat:I added a positive review source to balance the negative one. The film got a mixed reception, so that should balance things out nicely. Yintan 13:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I was the editor responsible for accepting this article and I thought there were enough sources to pass WP:GNG I could be wrong. The article's subject has removed the negative review which was her reason for requesting deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: No, she hasn't. The citation is still there. Yintan 13:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yintan: The citation is still there but the content was removed by this edit [90] . Theroadislong (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as dependent on a forthcoming film (crystal ball). If and when such film becomes notable, then the screenwriter may also be. Until then, I would suggest that the notability is thin, and we can err on the side of deletion in this case. Collect (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments, thank you. I feel now that the article may remain, now that the offending passage is not quoted. For the record: there were many more credits here, with respectable references, which were edited out. What is one person's 'notable' is another person's 'obscure,' I guess, if you're unfamiliar with the film industry. Being hired to write films, by the likes of directors Roland Emmerich and David Fincher, producer Harvey Weinstein, studios like DreamWorks, Warner Bros, Focus, is extremely notable in my business, even if the films aren't yet made. We rise to the top of the heap against all the odds (especially women writers -- only 11% of working screenwriters are women, it's a very hard climb). We measure success by how often we're hired and the people who hire us -- as writers, we have no control over whether a film is made by a studio. That's not our measure. (AW)

Sadly though I seem to be the only editor who considers you anywhere near notable enough for an article, so it is certain to be deleted. as per your original request. Theroadislong (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making your support contingent on the current content of the article is problematic, because there is nothing to prevent material that you do not personally like from being restored, or other material that you might not like from being added. If the article survives your current deletion attempt, it will be harder for you to have it deleted in the future. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I never meant to get into a fight with Wikipedia. I did believe the site, at least for modern entries of working people in the arts, is as much a self-promotional tool as anything else. There are others in my filmmaking circles who have placed pages here, and I thought I'd do the same. After two months, I've had enough, I'm sure you have, too. Apologies and thanks. (AW) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauty111 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable screenwriter. The coverage is not there to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an as-yet non-notable screenwriter. The article was created by the subject and her entourage for admittedly promotional purposes and she seems determined to control the content, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 29 November 2016 (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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Franke (philosopher)

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

Not notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary for a deletion nomination to give at least a few words of explanation of why the nominator thinks that a subject doesn't meet the applicable notability guidelines, in this case WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe he meets WP:ACADEMIC based on Google Scholar citations; however, article needs massive cleanup. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as not only is the nomination thin with only "not notable" when it's in fact necessary (for these subjects) to be clear and specific, and he is in fact notable both as a professor and author, it's enough. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think counting Google scholar citations is the wrong way to go for this subject. However, I think he has enough academic monographs by respectable publishers, and enough reviews of them, to pass WP:PROF#C1 and WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2016 (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. Article at the moment fails to assert WP:GNG. No prejudice to recreation if it can assert any kind of notability. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Lei (basketball)

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

I think he fails WP:NBASKETBALL, no international experience, just a benchwarmer in the Chinese Basketball Association (CBA), and already out of the league since 2011 (when he was only 24). Whereas Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cory Underwood averaged 10.8 points in 24 games in China ([91]), Feng Lei only averaged <3 points in the CBA over 4 seasons, including 2 seasons where he only played in 1 game each ([92]). Timmyshin (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps notable on an Asian-language Wiki, but not enough sources in English to satisfy WP:GNG on the English Wikipedia. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jrcla2: The sources don't have to be in English to establish notability, as long as they are reliable. → Call me Razr Nation 23:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but this doesn't have any sources to begin with. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whether this has sufficient non-English sources I do not know at this point, but Razr is correct that Jrcla2's initial statement - which I gather he now retracts - was not correct, as he does not need "sources in English to satisfy GNG on the English Wikipedia". 2604:2000:E016:A700:BCF9:21E6:5705:D71E (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 23:59, 26 November 2016 (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.

[1] ttp://www.blitzquotidiano.it/blitztv/emma-morano-116-anni-ci-si-arriva-single-e-con-uova-crude-2461083/

[2] ttp://nepszava.hu/cikk/1098330-a-titok-a-ket-nyers-tojas

[3] ttp://sz-magazin.sueddeutsche.de/texte/anzeigen/44814/

[4] ttps://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/33044154/emma-morano-worlds-oldest-person-and-egg-fanatic/

[5] ttps://www.google.nl/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1ASUC_enNL572NL572&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=emma+morano&tbm=nws

[6] ttp://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/oldest-person

[7] ttp://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2016/5/guinness-world-records-announces-emma-martina-luigia-morano-as-worlds-oldest-liv-428983

[ls03_imdb-8] Lesbian Seductions: Older/Younger 3 (Video 2005) - IMDb. Retrieved January 14, 2013.

[ls03_iafd-9] sbian seductions 3 - porn movie - iafd.com - internet adult film database. Retrieved January 14, 2013.

[10] ttp://www.worldcat.org/title/american-mythmaker-walter-noble-burns-and-the-legends-of-billy-the-kid-wyatt-earp-and-joaquin-murrieta/oclc/894140203

[11] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=YFbZBgAAQBAJ&pg=PR4&lpg=PR4&dq=%22mark+j.+dworkin%22+american+mythmaker&source=bl&ots=OKfeu1E20M&sig=ezViMF8JBlRLIEwK07_clk_CPtk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZhaL78MfQAhWBNSYKHcbZCEoQ6AEISTAJ#v=onepage&q=%22mark%20j.%20dworkin%22%20american%20mythmaker&f=false

[12] ttp://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/american-mythmaker-mark-j-dworkin/1120744013

[funtoo-home-13] Funtoo Homepage http://www.funtoo.org/Welcome

[funtoo-github-14] GitHub page https://github.com/funtoo

[funtoo-freenode-15] Freenode IRC channel https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=funtoo

[funtoo-forums-16] Funtoo Forums http://forums.funtoo.org/

[funtoo-reddit-17] Funtoo subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/funtoo/

[funtoo-compute-18] Funtoo Compute Initiative http://www.funtoo.org/Funtoo_Compute_Initiative

[funtoo-platforms-19] Funtoo platforms http://www.funtoo.org/Subarches

[gentoo-platforms-20] Gentoo platforms https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Prefix#Platform_matrix

[funtoo-kernels-21] Funtoo kernels http://www.funtoo.org/Funtoo_Linux_Kernels

[gentoo-kernels-22] Gentoo kernels https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Kernel

[funtoo-faq-23] Funtoo does not support systemd http://www.funtoo.org/Funtoo_Linux_FAQ

[gentoo-freebsd-24] Gentoo FreeBSD https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]