Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 December	15 December >

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 deleted Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melochia arborea[edit]

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

This is a valid taxon, but has been prematurely created in an unhelpful and non-constructive manner from a red-linked article (Melochia), so contains no worthwhile data at present. It is doubtful the editor will enhance it, so page deletion or content blanking is recommended for now. Parkywiki (talk) 23:16, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael tavon[edit]

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

I'm not A7ing this because of the claim that his book was the inspiration for a hit TV series, but I find no evidence that this person meets WP:GNG, and there's no indication for WP:BIO. Largoplazo (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that it was the inspiration for the series either. The plots don't sound very similar. I hope he's better at writing novels than he is at writing Wikipedia articles. Deb (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence.Not a notable Entertainers. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 23:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability, unverified claim. Jellyman (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:24, 17 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) 08:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Muse (2011 film)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria at WP:NOTFILM. Krychek (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as citing RottenTomatoes is a quite underwhelming excuse of sourcing and as I was watching this, I can say there's absolutely nothing for genuine notability and substance hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are few hits on Google, and none of them look reliable at all. I can't even find independent confirmation that it was released. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Due to the commonality of the name, it is difficult to research to establish whether this is notable or not. My searches did not turn up anything to indicate such, but if in-depth sourcing can be provided, I am always ready to listen. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search for the-muse 2011 "taylor grant" -wikipedia brings up nothing of relevance except various IMDb clones. I've found a few film reviews (e.g.), but they seem to be about a film of the same name made by different people. I'm assuming SwisterTwister meant IMDb because I've found no evidence of it being on RT (that would anyway be fairly unlikely with 14 votes on IMDb). Daß Wölf 00:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't really see any substantial references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:42, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair fight[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This is an ordinary phrase and doesn't not appear to be an independently notable concept in secondary reliable sources. Joe Roe (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nomination. The bits that might not be considered a dictionary definition are really unclear. What does "The feedback from instances of unfair fights can sometimes be negative" really mean, for example? This appears to be amateurish WP:OR. Edgeweyes (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dictionary definition. Jellyman (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC. Could be an entry for Wiktionary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:34, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Icebob99 (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmodium icipeensis[edit]

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

Not a single source to be found. Only two mentions out of non-mirror sites, and those were in an indiscriminate list of Plasmodium species that has some errors. Only 70 results on a google search Icebob99 (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does appear to have been a real species description published under this name, though I don't have access to the paper: [1]. And while my first instinct on reading the specific epithet was to assume this was a hoax, it seems that ICIPE has used it before: [2]. But it's clear this has never been accepted or validated; the article itself mentions a different species in its text; and the article was started by an editor who was blocked for uncritically cut-and-pasting copyvio from whatever abstracts he could google up, so in all likelihood this was just an error in the first place. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The paper (Dipeolu & Mutinga, 2011) in question describes this and 9 others as species novae. It fulfills the requirements for publication under the ICZN and is thus valid until challenged.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Going to withdraw based on that paper. Google didn't pull it up in search results for some reason...? Thanks for bringing it here. Icebob99 (talk) 03:42, 18 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 merge to List of Greyhawk deities. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Osprem[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Greyhawk deities. bd2412 T 20:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities. A minor fictional deity, with no reliable, non-primary sources. The only places I can find with information on her are things like fansites and wikis, which are not reliable sources. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as per above. BOZ (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 15:19, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmodium corradettii[edit]

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

Per this paper, the characterization of this species is not clear and thus should not have an encyclopedia article Icebob99 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that a nomen dubium does not rate an article unless otherwise notable, which does not seem to be the case.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure nomina dubia don't merit an article (the articles we do have in Category:Nomina dubia are almost all dinosaurs, a group of organisms where the is a great deal of interest and significant effort to resolve dubious names). Plantdrew (talk) 17:52, 16 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 merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ioun[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition, unless reliable third party sources can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. A minor fictional deity, with no reliable, non-primary sources. I'm not finding anything outside of fansites and such upon searches. I'm actually finding way more hits on the Ioun stones, which are long-standing items from D&D, which this goddess was eventually named after, but not very much on the goddess. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per J Milburn. BOZ (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities - not enough sources to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 17 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Icebob99 (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmodium coggeshalli[edit]

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

Taxonomic classification based on a species redescription that has not been recognized by the scientific community Icebob99 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More info: this article describes a very obscure species of Plasmodium. Besides the description paper, found as a source in the article, the few mentions of this species lie in lists of species under the Plasmodium genus. These lists also have the name of the species before the redescription (Plasmodium lophurae, which I created), thus they don't actually show that the species was renamed. See this list or this list and do a ctrl+F for both coggeshalli and lophurae. Icebob99 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is rather confused; the species wasn't renamed. I can't access full text, but the abstract of the paper where P. coggeshalli was described is available here. The abstract reads (in part, translated from French via Google): "A new examination of the blood smears of Lophura, Chickens and Turkeys .... shows the presence of three distinct species that had previously been designated as Plasmodium lophurae Coggeshall, 1938. The work includes the redescription of P. lophurae and the description of P. coggeshalli n.sp. And P. papernai n.sp." P. lophurae was "redescribed" to conform to a narrower circumscription with two new species recognized. There's nothing in there about "renaming" or any statement of synonymy. Plantdrew (talk) 17:49, 16 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Summer[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guidelines - non-notable TV show Mdann52 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nine sources listed in article. Aired nationally on ITV; that's all it needs to clinch WP:N. Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has a wide range of sources (which meats GNG in my opinion) and it aired on ITV, which meets WP:NTV. st170e^talk 00:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:TVSERIES, since it was a regular (if short-lived) program on ITV. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 15:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QuantAlea[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; no independent sources (the conference talk was by someone whose email address is @quantalea...). PamD 18:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, before anyone else had commented. Independent sources now found for the related Alea GPU. Possibly the articles should be merged, but there's some notability in there I believe. PamD 16:55, 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alea GPU[edit]

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

~~No evidence of notability: no independent sources. PamD 18:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: independent sources now found, and no-one else has commented in this AfD. PamD 16:53, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claudiu Coropcă[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on a claim that he had played for in Oţelul Galaţi in the Romanian top flight, a claim not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all relevant criteria Spiderone 08:17, 22 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taigum Square Shopping Centre[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Very little third party coverage. And at one storey and 20,000 square metres, there is considerable consensus these sized shopping centres are notable in the absence of meaningful coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small shopping centre without any significant coverage fails WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Taigum (which could use some content). Kerry (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge. Non-notable shopping centre that fails WP:GNG. Content would not be useful in the city article. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has BARELY enough reference to justify an article, and other, similar articles exist. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an unduly broad conclusion from that essay, because it ignores the idea of precedent. The page also has, barely, enough references to be notable. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, two of the references are from community newspapers. You know, the free ones you pick up in a barbershop that talk about the Easter Bunny being at the mall at a certain time. The only reference from a legitimate WP:RS appears to reference the shopping center being runner up at a subregional award category. That is trivial coverage at best. The last is in an advertising magazine. The sources in this article do not establish any grounds for notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Tony. LibStar (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no significant coverage and,at this size, none to beexpected. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 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) 08:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Aureada[edit]

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

Notability of this article's subject is dubious; its page and pages related to it created by the same author have been repeatedly deleted in the past. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 15:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. I haven't even heard her name here in Lucena, Philippines. --Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 10:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Toni aureada WP:GNG Toni aureada is a Blogger from lucena city she is now live in manila and she is the youngest Animator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.1.8 (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero available sources except similar self-promotion on social media.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in search engines to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sweeps of Philippine news didn't find much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:58, 20 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 22:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Houston[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Unable to find secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the creator of the article. She received the highest annual honour for a lesbian at Pride Toronto, the Honoured Dyke, the largest Pride event in North America. She's been cited multiple times by the Toronto Star for her reporting and writing guest opinion pieces, the largest circulation newspaper in Canada, and a few times by the Globe, the largest national newspaper in Canada. She was the only ever staff writer at Xtra! (1984-2015), arguably the most successful LGBT publication in Canadian history. The article needs work, sure, but she is far and away more notable than most newspaper writers. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Zanimum (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of journalism-related deletion discussions. Zanimum (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She is certainly a "go to" person for one-line quotes, but I was not able to find secondary sources about her to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although the subject holds an academic appointment, there is no pass of WP:Prof. Notability will have to be found elsewhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Creator's rationale for keeping isn't particularly strong. Firstly, happening to be the Honoured Dyke at one specific Pride festival, in the city where one lives, is not in and of itself evidence of nationalized or internationalized notability — there have been far more Honoured Dykes and Grand Marshals at Toronto Pride who don't have Wikipedia articles than there have been ones who do (and even the ones who do, it's not because honoured dyke or grand marshal, but because of the overarching notability of the reasons why they were chosen as honoured dyke or grand marshal.) Secondly, while Toronto's Pride is certainly one of the largest in all of North America, there is no sourced evidence that it's the largest even over New York City's or San Francisco's or Chicago's. Thirdly, neither being a giver of soundbite in media coverage of other things nor being the author of media content about other things confers a WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST pass in and of itself — a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage, not by being the author of it or by having her existence namechecked in coverage of other subjects. Fourthly, I'm not sure where he's getting the claim that she was Xtra's only-ever staff writer, but I'm sure Marcus McCann and Neil Herland and Eleanor Brown and Dale Smith and Rob Salerno and Rachel Giese would be fascinated by the implication that they don't exist. And fifthly, being a contract professor at a university isn't an automatic WP:PROF pass, either. I'll add her to WP:CANQUEER as a potential future article topic, but nothing here as of right now is enough, in the absence of her being the subject of (again: not "quoted in", not "author of", but subject of) quite a lot more reliable source coverage than has been shown.
I'm not dismissing the value of Andrea's work at all, either — I certainly don't know her well, but I've met her personally once and have no reason whatsoever to dislike her. But having a Wikipedia article can have unintended negative consequences, such as the ability of anonymous people who do dislike her for some reason to make POV attack edits criticizing her, or to violate her privacy rights by posting her home address and phone number. That's the central reason why we have WP:BLP rules, and specific notability standards that have to be reliably sourced before a person is deemed notable enough to have a Wikipedia article: not to dismiss the Andrea Houstons of the world as unimportant, but to protect them from the potential consequences of having a poorly sourced article. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in, and I'll reply in more depth later. One source for it being the largest in North America is Huffpost. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of those cases where just because a journalist asserts it doesn't inherently make it true in and of itself — we would need to see a source that specifically compares Toronto to NYC and San Francisco and Chicago to prove that Toronto is the largest. You can also easily find journalists who assert that "Eaton's dropped the apostrophe from their stores in Quebec because Bill 101" (which is actually wrong, because Bill 101 never covered branding trademarks, and in reality Eaton's made its own internal business decision to "Frenchify" its name in Quebec several years before Bill 101 even existed at all), and that "the Apollo astronauts visited Sudbury to see what the surface of the moon was going to look like" (wrong, because for one thing they went to study a specific rock formation, and for another the city didn't actually look like the surface of the moon), and that "Charlotte Whitton was Canada's first woman mayor" (wrong, because while she was the first woman mayor of a major city, she was preceded by a few women mayors of smaller towns, but some people do erroneously think Whitton was the first woman to become a mayor anywhere at all in Canada.)

Journalists do sometimes simply repeat "popular knowledge" that's actually wrong, and "how many people attended Pride this year" is a thing that tends to generate debate about the numbers, rather than being verifiable in any objective sense — so we need a source which specifically shows hard evidence that Toronto's is the largest Pride in North America, not one which merely asserts it as a given. And even if it actually does turn out to be, being honoured dyke at the largest Pride in North America still wouldn't be an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The above comment makes the very significant point that having a BLP in Wikipedia may have significant detrimental effect on its subject. Did the creator of the BLP seek the consent of the subject before writing it? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The personal consent of the subject isn't a requirement that Wikipedians have to seek out. I raised that point just as a clarification that my comment wasn't motivated by any personal animus against Andrea Houston — let's face it, the chances of Andrea and I meeting each other again in the future and possibly even having to work together on something are exponentially further away from zero than they are for most other people with Wikipedia articles, so I'm just trying to be extra-careful that nobody gets the wrong idea about what I meant. But no, Zanimum didn't have a responsibility to seek out her permission first — he just has a responsibility to keep the potential for BLP damage in mind when weighing whether an article is appropriate yet or not. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct to say that there is no policy requirement for the creator of a BLP to obtain or even seek permission of the subject before creating it. However, common decency might suggest otherwise. A large number of sub-notable BLPs is being created by special interest groups in editathons and so forth. In many of these sub-notable BLPs the subject of them is dragged through the humiliating process of AfD through no wish of their own. Because of the poor BLPs that survive AfD, often due to special interest pressure, people may not wish to have a BLP in Wikipedia because they don't fancy the company they find themselves in. This is one example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sally Marks. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete lack of sufficient sources to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of enough independent sources to establish notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 16 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 Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intertrust Technologies Corporation[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 14:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the company is notable, and think the article can be saved. Quality is quite poor right now, but can try a pass removing the clear marketing language. W Nowicki (talk) 23:49, 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 per WP:SK#1. A rationale for deletion has not been presented, only one for merging. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions by Garbis Aprikian[edit]

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

Should merge with Garbis Aprikian Rathfelder (talk) 14:20, 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 speedy delete. nn, abuse of multiple COI accounts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UCC Express[edit]

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

A student newspaper at a college, with no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have not had enough time yet to add content to display that it does satisfy notability guideline, has used several independent sources already Have stopped using a pseudonym "RobEditorExpress" (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: RobEditorExpress (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. Delete: I agree. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 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. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frost God[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM criteria Domdeparis (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would argue that it does meet the notability requirement. This album is just as notable as any other Yung Lean release and the only reason it was dry on sources initially was because it was a surprise release. However, the album is frequently being written about now in various Hip-hop online magazines. Especially considering the featuring artists who are on the album, such as ASAP Ferg. TheDethklokGuy (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per TheDethklokGuy. Article was created right after the mixtape's release, and thus had no sources to confirm notability at the time. However, a few days later, the proper sources have been added to the article and now it passes WP:NALBUM without a doubt. JTtheOG (talk) 00:19, 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 delete. Sandstein 13:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic15 (game)[edit]

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

None of the sources refer to a game called "Magic 15" in which players "[select] a number between 1 and 9 and [play] it on the 3-by-3 board", they're all just describing how Pick15 (played without a board) is functionally identical to tic-tac-toe and explaining this by mapping it onto a magic square, in only one case ("Tic Tac Toe Magic") briefly describing this view of the game as both "Magic15" and "Magic3". I can find no evidence of a game called "Magic15" being played in the manner described here. McGeddon (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pick15. Delete After a very brief search I found this that seems to verify Magic15's existence, but only as a variant of Pick15. It seems Pick15 is played without the tic-tac-toe square, where as Magic15 is exactly that. The name comes from Magic square. Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the source I'm referring to above. I don't think it's suggesting that Magic15 is a recognised game, it seems to be using it as a way of explaining Pick15 in terms of a game of tic-tac-toe played on a magic square. The term "Magic15" does not appear to be used anywhere else, and doesn't seem worth mentioning in the Pick15 article. --McGeddon (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the other abstract sources I glimpsed at were just recital/coverage of the same source. I'm changing my vote to outright delete. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of them are even referencing that source, they're just talking about the widely-known game of Pick15, which is intrinsically a game about magic squares. --McGeddon (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recital/coverage were bad choices of words. It's just a bunch of sites rehosting the paper, and this game. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this actually exists as a recognised game, and if it does then it is nowhere near notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:10, 20 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. G11 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QiK Circle A.R.M.S - Hotel Management Software[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of available independent sources. - Mr X 12:43, 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. Seeing as the sources raised by Atlantic306 were not contested Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Gamble[edit]

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

Cable movie which fails WP:NFP with no secondary sources (nj.com/allinmag.com sources are all interviews with the director). Film does not appear to meet the "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" (or any other criteria) or WP:NFO, Rotten Tomatoes list no critical reviews. McGeddon (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep firstly the nominator is aware that I was more or less canvassed to comment here as shown here but had this on my watchlist anyway so it did not make any difference. While WP:NFILM may not be passed, I think there is enough for WP:GNG to be met which overrides project specific guidelines. There is a Hell Horror review here, Scared Stiff review here, coverage here, Horror News Review and here Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the movie seems to have good sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.211.5 (talk) 11:57, 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Role of DBMS in the information era[edit]

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

Doesn't establish notability and potentially WP:Promo and definitely WP:NOTTEXTBOOK per "This article will go a long way to help students to improve their understanding of the importance of DBMS." Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 11:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely promotional, and definitely worded like a textbook. If we keep it, we need a HUGE re wording.Layla, the remover (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maroš Zelizňák[edit]

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

A high school (or equivalent) basketball player. Does not meet WP:NHOOPS. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 11:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What you said above, and I think this article was created by a friend of his. I also like who it says he's "schooling some random kids" under the picture. Layla, the remover (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete omg his picture is amazing, and I wish all pro players had something like it in their article. That aside... yeah, this guy is at most a secondary school basketball guy, so he doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. That being said, if it is deleted I really want the closing admin to give an honourable mention for the picture and caption. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 20 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. Can be restored if there is ever a glossary article that this content could be merged to. Sandstein 21:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taffrail[edit]

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

This article has not developed past a mere definition since 2006. A literature search suggests that it lacks sufficient notability for an article. User:HopsonRoad 20:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wiktionary already has an entry and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The subject isn't notable, anyway. Sources mention it but aren't talking about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not a dictionary. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge- Category:Sailboat components has a number of stubs similar to this, for instance Trailboard, Cringle, and Fife rail. I think the fife rail article shows what the taffrail, trailboard, and cringle articles could look like if someone improved them. That said, I do not see an article, Sailboat components, although there are two templates: Template:Sail types and Template:Sailing ship elements. So to me, the best alternative to keep is to consolidate those stubs into an article discussing the various components of sailboats or ships more generally.Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 11:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to an article on sailing vessel components. What we have is no more than a dictionary definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and expand. Its more than a didef. It discusses related concepts. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 10:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is kept it could be added to Template:Sailing ship elements, which I've done, at least for now. This may have the result of getting more eyes on this discussion. Stern seems to be a viable merge option, but I also agree that even this short article is more than a dictionary definition. So I would also have no objection to keeping, as a historically notable part of a sailing ship . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition that already has an entry on Wiktionary. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:19, 20 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) 08:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David King Reuben[edit]

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

The subject does not seem to fulfill the WP:GNG criteria the only reliable secondary source mentions him in passing. This seems to be a WP:VANITY page. Domdeparis (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think an eight year grace period to have literally anything else written about you, is very kind of the Wikipedia community, but probably more than enough in this instance. TimothyJosephWood 14:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 17 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) 08:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Clough Daffern[edit]

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

PROD contested. Still doesn't meet the standard of.WP:BIO or.WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm surprised this has lasted this long, It seems like an old promotional article. Let's put it out of it's misery. Layla, the remover (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wait, look at these... the bottom 2 on here suggest that this was possible created as an attack page. Strange... Layla, the remover (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolutely nothing substantial here at all and the sources themselves are also trivial and unconvincing to the extent WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a nice chap. Doesn't seem to be notable. Agree that it currently looks promotional, though the redirect/attack is really weird. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:35, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notakto (app)[edit]

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

App implementation of an existing tic-tac-toe variant that fails WP:NSOFTWARE with no strong secondary sources, only blog reviews. The Children's Book and Media Review does not seem to be a significant review source. As WP:NSOFTWARE says, "Wikipedia is not a directory of all apps that can be confirmed to exist." McGeddon (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thats an insignificant tic-tac-toe app for mobiles. WP seems to be flooded with articles about small apps. This one fails WP:PRODUCT generally and WP:NVIDEOGAMES/WP:NSOFTWARE specifically outright. It gets some mentions on non-RS but thats basically it. It is just a a run-of-the mill app of which 1000s exist. The refs in the article is basically everything which already can be found about this game/app; so I will just go through them:

Themagiccafe is a forum post; boardgamegeek is a no-RS. AppAnnie is just a download directory, Advances in losing is a wordpress blog, gmiapps is a download repository. The only actual source is Childrens book and media review, but I have strong doubts about whether this is a RS. It also just 9 sentences so its definitely not enough for WP:GNG. That leaves us with this paper. The app has been mentioned in this pretty obscure paper, but I don't think that this single mention there is enough to make it over the WP:GNG threshhold. There aren't any other RS which talk about this app I therefore think the article should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is written by Thane Plambeck and Greg Whitehead, the founders of the company who made the app, so this fails WP:RS as not being independent of the subject. --ad (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! Well I guess that further strengthens the argument that no RS for this app/game per WP:GNG exists. Dead Mary (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails all the guidelines and for all the reasons listed by Dead Mary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:56, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heap (company)[edit]

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

Small internet company, not yet notable. References are just announcements about funding and promotional interviews/reviews. . DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the company is not notable yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Thanks for bringing this to my attention, DDG.) I believe Heap is significantly notable to meet Wikipedia's requirements based on the references cited. I will focus on a point of contrast worthy of discussion: There are hundreds (perhaps thousands?) of companies of lesser qualification when judged on the criteria of major industry news coverage, notable customers, volume of customer adoption, technological significance, and industry awards that have merited Wiki articles that remain uncontested after years or successfully won their deletion contests. Some quickly skimmed related companies include Looker, Highcharts, Kaggle, Propstack, Medio, Segment and Metafor Software. (To browse a list of lesser-Wiki-qualified companies in the same business categories, see Category:Data analysis software, Category:Business intelligence companies, Category:Analytics companies to start.) My conclusion is that deeming this Heap article as unqualified for inclusion today is 1) by-the-book counter to Wiki's inclusion requirements (I will leave it to others to debate the minutiae if they feel compelled to delete this entry[1]) and 2) raising the bar so high that it invalidates the Wikipedia entries of countless technology companies, many of which are for companies that are similarly as well-known and relevant in the software technology industry as Heap. Which is to say most people in this industry know of these companies or work with them in some way. [1] If you proceed with an argument for delete, given the quality of references for this entry and the state of similar entries on Wikipedia, I think it is imperative a full analysis of the insufficiency of Heap and its references is detailed, and that it is also performed for many of the other companies listed above so that a holistic comparison can ensue. The references cited in this article focus largely on Heap as their subject (if not exclusively) and are from reputable news publications in their industry. Heap also has sufficient merit on the criteria listed above (adoption, awards, etc.) User:GDWin (talk) 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete and I meant to comment sooner, it's quite clear this is a trivial and unconvincing article regardless of what other people think, because our established notability policies explicitly state removal is allowed, and it's a non-negotiable policy. It's quite simple here so there's no need to overwork ourselves when it's clear this is only a business listing. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have a notability policy, much less a "non-negotiable policy" -- GreenC 23:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wut? TimothyJosephWood 18:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to Wikipedia's policy on notability? We have policies, and we have guidelines. It raises a red flag when someone argues a guideline is "non-negotiable" as reason for deletion. -- GreenC 18:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's somewhere in this area. TimothyJosephWood 18:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the community wants to delete it they can, regardless of notability - it's just a guideline. I've seen it happen many times. If it was policy it would be different. It's not pedantry, the words mean something. -- GreenC 19:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Response to SwisterTwister: "trivial and unconvincing article regardless of what other people think" is a dismissive non-response. Please detail what's trivial and unconvincing about the article as compared to the guidelines for inclusion and relative to other articles that have surpassed deletion contests. User:GDWin (talk) 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete - (Thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion, GDWin). I have to agree with the nominator. In the article, the first source is a self-published one (by Heap Analytics). The NBC News source doesn't even mention Heap at all. The other sources (Forbes and TechCrunch) are merely trivial coverage as per WP:CORPDEPTH. I couldn't find much reliable sources by searching. No depth of coverage. - TheMagnificentist 18:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I'm not going to !vote, since I was notified of this discussion by GDWin, who already has.) Having poked around a bit online, this is a bit complicated by the exceedingly generic name of the company.^[a] However, I would say that the current article includes sourcing to Forbes, which is not obvious since the cite template was only partially completed. Looking at the source, it's pretty in depth coverage, and Forbes is about as WP:RS as coverage of mid-sized companies gets. TimothyJosephWood 18:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This would be considered "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" and this as passing mention. - TheMagnificentist 18:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And neither of those were the Forbes article I was talking about. TimothyJosephWood 19:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is no point making comparisons between different articles There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. There;'s about a 10% error rate (in both directions at afd)--you will not even find it stated that WP even tries for consistency.

As for policy, the actual policy is the WP IS AN ENCYLOPEDIA< NOTDIRECTORY and NOTPROMOTION. The notability guidelines are not policy, and can be ignored if there is a consensus to do in any given case;;that's intrinsic to any guideline, and this particular one even says so specifically at the top, so I read it to encourage using whatever standards consensus wants to apply. What is actually necessary to show in any given article is why the subject belongs in a encyclopedia , rather than a directory. There's no such information here. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not yet notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

^ Note to entrepreneurs: you are more likely to get your own WP article if you literally name your company a random but unique string of characters

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GreedyGame[edit]

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

Clear advertising with clear advertising-motivations by advertising-only accounts, not only considering every single thing here is either published or republished PR advertising, but the casualty of simply tossing links without actually specifying shows it too, regardless of anything, because that's exactly what WP:NOT states, we are not a company-advertising platform, and this is quite clear it was supposed to be used as one. For Wikipedia's sake, the history itself shows this was not planned for anything else but advertising, so it's both blatant and covert advertising. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on a run of the mill tech company. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 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 05:06, 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 08:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promo piece. Agree with K.e.coffman on the run of the mill coverage/company. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:25, 20 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planys Technologies[edit]

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

Clear advertising by clear advertising-only accounts and, regardless of the "first and only company", this is still advertising and the sources show it, thus there's nothing to suggest both non-advertising-motivated and actual convincing substance, and the article's current history speaks for itself. With WP:NOT policy, there's nothing to suggest we should tolerate this. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Apologies for violating the wikipedia norms. I have edited the article again and updated, please review and let me know of any other changes.To give an overview, Planys Technologies is an authorized company in Chennai TamilNadu, India and the content mentioned is authentic and true abiding by the company norms. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamanujaVijay (talk • contribs) 09:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yes we are noted and I have mentioned the references as well. Maybe my referencing is wrong, please guide me as to what should be done further. There are a couple of article publications in which we were featured upon and I have added a few in the referencing column too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamanujaVijay (talk • contribs) 07:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:55, 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 05:06, 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 08:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft Depending on how innovative their submersible technology is, they might conceivably be notable, but the references here do not show it. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yes we are noted and I have mentioned the references as well. Maybe my referencing is wrong, please guide me as to what should be done further. There are a couple of article publications in which we were featured upon and I have added a few in the referencing column too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.232.134 (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources and article text imply WP:TOOSOON status. Possibility of further sources that can support notability can be accommodated by future undeletion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:00, 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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Peaks[edit]

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

Non notable shopping centre, Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 17:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have added sources that establish its notability Eckerslike (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Their great however usually with shopping centres their should be about 7/8 sources by now, If you can find more I'll happily close this but as it stands there's still no evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- Meadowhall and shopping centres of similar size are notable. Other retail parks (US malls) are not. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 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 05:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough to have a page. I have seen much worse, like for instance Manchester Fort. MFriedman (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles being worse has no relevance to this AFD. –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google book search finds some coverage, almost certainly enough in addition to existing sources. If not, it would be possible to merge to Mosborough (ward)#Waterthorpe. Peter James (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having searched "Crystal Peaks sheffield" the only thing I'm finding are store directories/addresses .... so there's barely any coverage at all, I'd oppose a merge simply because half of this article is already at Mosborough_(ward)#Waterthorpe so closing as merge would be quite pointless when there's nothing to merge, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm generally very skeptical of local shopping centre articles (they tend to be full of local sources about Easter bunnies and whatnot as claims to notability.) The only reason I am going keep here is because the coverage that exists mentions attendance and actual store openings and closings that cover the mall and are barely enough to pass WP:ORG in my mind. I also wouldn't cry if this article was deleted, however, but if asked to come down on one side, I'd have to say keep it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 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:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lataguri MPCA[edit]

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

No sources. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 06:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:10, 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 12:27, 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 08:41, 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 redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. And merge what editors may deem necessary from the history. Sandstein 21:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skaven (Warhammer)[edit]

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

WP:GNG I could not find any reliable sources offering independent coverage of Skaven for the Warhammer Fantasy tabletop game. The only sources cited are primary ones. Odie5533 (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy, where they already have a section discussing them. The article, as it stands, is just a ridiculously huge amount of completely unsourced fancruft. I actually did find a few third party sources mentioning the creatures, namely in a handful of articles talking about the video game Warhammer: End Times – Vermintide in which they are the featured enemies. However, that information can be added to their already sizable section of the "Races an nations of Warhammer Fantasy" article without keeping any of the mess here. None of the information currently present in this article, as it is both unsourced and unnotable, is worth keeping or merging. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. BOZ (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MotoCMS[edit]

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

Article in existence once again because a random account stated "It was only a deletion and the article is informative" yet this is of no comfort since the article itself is still trivial and unconvincing and the accompanying sources are also, and simply nothing establishes genuine substance and convincing for an article; the history as it is clearly shows there's been heavy emphasis from company-advertising accounts so it's not surprising they would jump at the article's deletion, so non-negotiable policy WP:NOT clearly applies. SwisterTwister talk 16:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:IINFO and WP:SPA - Majority of the article has been written by two users whose only edits are to this page. WP:PROMO may also apply. Although there are some criticisms stated, they are countered in a promotional way. Doesn't appear to be anything notable about the product. CBS527^Talk 15:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very close to G7 territory, no independent indication of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:33, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Fiji and Georgia[edit]

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

A two game series between two teams, with no indication of significance or notability. Was de-prodded with the rationale: "The teams are high performance unions and as such the matches are both notable and significant." Unfortunately, notability isn't inherited. Nothing about this series appears notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Both teams are notable and as such the statistics and history of their matches is of interest and may be worthy of a page depending on the content and the sources. The page is poor in content and requires more prose and sources to prove that it meets the WP:GNG but the history of matches between 2 world class teams is undeniably significant. --Domdeparis (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 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 08:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. As most rugby union rivalries are notable without being inherited, these two countries have both performed home and away in either others nations, while the head-to-head history isn't that long yet, both teams are notable World Cup teams and there is no doubt there will be future test games between both sides. Ajf773 (talk) 21:46, 16 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 and redirect to Ripcordz. czar 07:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just adding a note for clarity, in case somebody reviews this discussion in the future and is confused that two of the three redirects created here have since been deleted: in the process of reference-repairing the band's article, it became clear that two of the three titles were actually wrong names for the albums, which should actually have been titled There Ain't No H and Ripcordz Are Go(d). So both redirects are still in place, but have been moved to the correct titles. Bearcat (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't No 'H' in Ripcordz, Dork-Face[edit]

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

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

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

I realize punk bands are not known for mainstream popularity, but this album has absolutely no sources to be found, even after a search. There would be something if this was considered important to the genre. It has been unsourced since it was created and nothing will change to make it notable. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be fair, this was created at a time (2006) when our notability standards for albums were a lot looser and a lot less dependent on standalone reliable source coverage about the album than they are now — at the time, all it took to get an album kept was the fact that the band who recorded it were notable enough to have an article. That's not the rule that pertains anymore, however — and on a ProQuest search, all I can find for further coverage is two glancing namechecks of its existence in articles about the band. That's just not enough under WP:NALBUMS as it stands today. And just to be clear, this is not a question of me lacking personal familiarity with the topic — I personally attended a Ripcordz concert during their tour supporting this very album (crap, I'm old!) — but the referencing needed to properly support an article about it simply isn't there. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've also added the band's other two albums which do also have articles, as they're subject to the same total lack of sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 16 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. czar 07:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getmii (app)[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability. This article has a ton of references (too many, really), but almost none of them constitute significant coverage in reliable sources.

The only reliable source I see is the Boston Globe article; however, it's a very brief, broad overview of the app, and hardly makes for significant coverage. The other reference that might constitute a reliable source is the Buzzfeed article; however, that link is actually a community-written blog post rather than a reliable article by the Buzzfeed staff. The rest of the sources seem to be entirely questionable/unreliable. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 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 08:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the same reasons Maxwell Meyer was. Non-notable company and only sources aside from the one mentioned above are in passing (like an alumni newsletter or pages that more or less just copy and paste the press release.) Also, here is the previous [discussion] and there are a few more mentions now but do not seem to come from reliable sources. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Reads like a cleverly written press release trying to hide its promotional nature. Non-encyclopedic tone, and sources don't tend to support notable content beyond that. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 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:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Poduval[edit]

(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 delete. MER-C 04:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grace (musical group)[edit]

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

NN band. Someone declined the speedy because why. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article lacking independent, third party references. This entry seems to be another case of believing that existence equals notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable band lacking non-trivial support. I do not understand why the A7 was removed - invalid reasoning was cited by the editor that removed it. reddogsix (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasoning was perfectly valid, as below. Adam9007 (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into T. D. Jakes. Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Adam9007 (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly promotional, by a redlink editor who, judging from his or her edits overall, may be being paid to promote bands here. Can we include the stub Grace (Self-titled album) as part of this deletion discussion?--Tenebrae (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted that under CSD A9. MER-C 04:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's two notable artists I know of called Grace, this isn't one of them. KaisaL (talk) 16:06, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Vladimirovich Gorokhov[edit]

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

I originally tagged this with a CSD, but was declined by Adam9007 citing 'Worked with notable people.', but working with notable people is not a valid criteria under WP:ARTIST. Looking at WP:ARTIST, the closest criteria is 'has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition', but I would hardly classify exhibitions at a bar/nightclub as being 'significant'. I have also checked the references and the best of them are YouTube videos posted by the subject, blogs by the subject or other blogs. Many of the references have either been deleted, or are unreachable. Given this, it would appear that the article is either autobiographical, or by someone with a close association. Overall, I consider that this article should be deleted as it clearly fails WP:ARTIST. David.moreno72 07:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note What I can see by my search in Russian, there is no even any evidence to the claim, that he worked with anyone of those "notable" people. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Winning at the IPAs would be significant. I just can't seem to find any evidence that he actually was a Winner in the category of “Professional photographers IPA” (2013). The promotional tone doesn't inspire confidence. Mduvekot (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note He wasn't a winner for 2013 by this [3]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTISTS in all it's categories. There is no any single claim for significance. Working with notable people (which is also not supported by any source, but some dead link) does not make a photographer notable, unless those works are reviewed and presented by wither magazine, journal or public gallery/museum. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED; WP:TOOSOON at the very least. I don't know enough Russian to evaluate the sources, and the raft of social-media ELs makes me suspect that this may be an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Miniapolis 21:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the above. Seems to be more vanity and self-promotion than anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up any evidence that this person passes notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:45, 20 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) 09:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Plastic Bucket[edit]

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

This article has one source. I was unable to find any additional independent published material about this band, although I did find a small advertisement for one of their two releases, and I found their name on a Trent University Radio playlist. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. It's not too surprising for a local band that was only around for a few years. I got all excited when I saw the same Google Books hit as the nom, but, yeah, it's just an advertisement. Exclaim.ca often has reviews for these more obscure bands, but there wasn't anything there. The hits on Google all look like Wikipedia mirrors. It's possible there's stuff that never got digitally archived. If someone finds offline coverage, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the Jam "Pop Music Encyclopedia" link does make some vague claims of significance that might count for something if they could be quantified properly, vague claims like "harvested enthusiastic critical response from a number of influential publications" and "garnered a significant amount of College radio airplay" and "included in syndicated radio programs" don't satisfy WP:NMUSIC in the absence of firm sources demonstrating which specific "influential publications" or which specific "syndicated radio programs" were involved — these are exactly the kind of puffed-up claims that we routinely see in articles about self-promoting wannabes who don't actually have any genuinely strong evidence of notability to offer. (Frex, for current bands the "influential publications" often turn out to be published to Blogspot and the "syndicated radio programs" often turn out to be podcasts — and while those didn't exist in the 1990s per se, the 1990s did have zines and tape trading networks that could also be PR-massaged into unnamed "influential publications" and unnamed "syndicated radio programs".)
On a ProQuest search, further, I got just eight hits for "yellow plastic bucket", all of which were referring to water receptacles that happened to be coloured yellow and made of plastic, and none of which were referring to a band. So, yeah, none of this meets NMUSIC as things stand — especially since even the poor references we do have just credit them with two singles, but zero full-length albums, and even the unreliable fansite quotes reviews in zines, not reviews in publications like Rolling Stone or Spin or Exclaim! that would actually count for something. Sure, the article could be recreated in the future if somebody can find good sourcing that properly supports notability — but on the evidence of what we've got so far I won't exactly hold my breath. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks sources to back up any claims. (I'm especially curious in what way they "influenced" Neil Young (!)) ----

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crusaders Broadcasting System[edit]

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

Non-notable unreferenced radio network. I can't find any articles about it online, only business listings. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability given or found. I did find that the Crusaders group has been around since at least the 1990s, when the permit for their station DWCD-FM was revoked. See https://web.archive.org/web/20041229151657/http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139583.htm Note that many (possibly all except for DWAD 1098) of the stations listed in this article appear to be proposed stations which are not yet on the air. For that matter, I can't even verify that DWAD 1098 is on the air. Their website is dead. Meters (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article was previously deleted by User:HJ Mitchell as Crusaders Broadcasting Systems in a mass deletion of articles by sock User:John Abento . See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bertrand101. I can't see if the content is the same. Meters (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The form isn't the same, no, but there's little to no difference in the substance apart from more outlets being listed this time. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Radio networks are not entitled to an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist; they must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to demonstrate that they pass WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG. And radio networks doubly aren't allowed to create unsourced articles about themselves, per WP:COI — I'll give them some credit for avoiding the advertorial tone that commonly infects these self-published articles, but they don't also get to avoid sourcing the article properly. I'll also note that there has been one attempt to blank the whole thing on the grounds that it's a WP:HOAX, although I don't know where to verify whether that's true or not — Meters' link above obviously shows that the company exists (or has existed in the past), but the lack of verifiability as to whether any of the individual stations listed in the article exist or not is still a problem. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 17 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. postdlf (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of earthquakes in 2017[edit]

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

Article is currently a copy of List of earthquakes in 2016 and should only appear in article space next year with current data. Devopam (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This will become a valid article in one month, so WP:TOOSOON shouldn't apply this close to 2017. We should avoid any confusion with previous years however and clear out all other data. Ajf773 (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of earthquakes for now. There could be no earthquakes in 2017. Unless there's some mover & shaker who can expand this now... Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why get rid of a useful skeleton and make someone do it over again? That's rule-following in defiance of sense. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 13 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) 01:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a reason for TOOSOONness, but in one month it will become a valid article. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Stanqo (talk) 12:07, 18 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 is that this is a notable subject. Article can be expanded through normal editing. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pantelides algorithm[edit]

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

There is both little evidence of significance, and only the lead sentence might be appropriate in a good article about the subject. No reliable sources are provided other than [1], which provides partial evidence of existence, not of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article shouldn't be removed: the algorithm itself is one of the backbones of Modelica compilers and in the Modeling and simulation industry considered a breakthrough for component-based modeling. — User:rhodin, 7 December 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a plausible reason to keep the article, if there was anything in the article worth keeping. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is improved (introduction, better sources), you agree that it is worth keeping? I'll see what I can do through this weekend to improve the article. --Rhodin (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting David Eppstein's note below, yes. I still say that there is only one sentence worth keeping in the article as I last read it. Keeping WP:TNT in mind, .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar shows 584 citations to the original publication of this algorithm, and 182 publications using the exact phrase "Pantelides algorithm", making it clearly notable. The fact that our current article is a stub in need of expansion is not a valid reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The algorithm is a core one in the simulation of dynamic systems. The article is a stub (created by me some years ago) and needs expansion rather than deletion. Jdpipe (talk) 23:24, 10 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) 01:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is pretty much useless, both to people unfamiliar with the term, and to people familiar with the term, but that may not be sufficient for WP:BLOWITUP to apply. The second paragraph would be useful if there were context. At a minimum, we need to link "index" in the lead, but I cannot find an appropriate point in the differential-algebraic equation article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article could be much improved, but isn't non-notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:55, 22 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. should not have been relisted0-the keep argument was not to the point. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash Katkar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Sources are mostly in passing or primary, the Indian "newspaper" articles are interviews, and those are problematic per WP:INTERVIEW. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete If that award talked about it there panned out, then maybe. Seems very spammy though. South Nashua (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as policy WP:NOT applies here since it's clear this is an advertisement part of an advertising campaign and thst alone is sufficient for any deletion. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the references provided in the article are well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourabhpaul1986 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 12 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) 01:48, 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 procedural close. Article was G2 speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 17:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth element of Hip-hop[edit]

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

Appears to be some kind of essay (perhaps for a school project). Either way, Wikipedia is not a place to post academic papers or schoolwork. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a (failed) attempt to upload a copy of Clark, Lamont (2013-11-22). KNOWLEDGE: The Fifth Element of Hip Hop. 70 West Press. Mduvekot (talk) 01:51, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Hykes[edit]

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

notability not established. no coverage outside industry media. Ysangkok (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Wired
Forbes (written by a Forbes staff writer)
Information Week, page2
Business Insider
eWeek
InfoWorld
Opensource.com
GeekWire
Gigaom
Business Insider
The Register
Business Insider

Delete. Just trivial commercial PR. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:00, 13 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) 01:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Docker, Inc. or just delete. So far at least the person has no independent notability beyond the company, as far as I can tell. Too soon for a separate article. Not every kid who starts a company that survives a few years get his own. The company article is pretty bad too, just a bullet list that needs to be rewritten into prose. W Nowicki (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Docker there's nothing worth merging. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 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. MER-C 04:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CloudWork[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT, as searches found no independent reliable sources for this cloud application. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing is there. The next news got deleted for its promotional coverage for such companies. Light2021 (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising to the sheer specifics of how it works as if this is a commercial. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sem van der Vegte[edit]

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

Voicing a minor role that is not attested by sources in a film once does not satisfy WP:NACTOR even if that film was a Star Wars film. The article doesn't say what creature, or even if the creature had words spoken. No reliable sources to be found on him either. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unsourced article on a 14-year-old. Even if the claims were true they would not amount to notability, but we lack verification.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR - Same subject was speedy deleted in 2014 under the name Sem Weelz. Insufficient neutral secundary sources to meet WP:GNG. A google search found no news items. A single voice actor role does not meet any of the WP:NACTOR criteria. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, fails WP:NACTOR and the WP:GNG. No references or significant roles. Tiller54 (talk) 17:25, 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 per WP:BLPPROD, which expired before the discussion reached a consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scientist DP Sharma Jaipur[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria, potential BLP issues, article creator rmv AfD template previously with no consensus reached that I can find. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 20:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hopeless, no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand at the World Firefighters Games[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for Thailand's participation at this particular event. Paul_012 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not able to find evidence of notability as the nom said. -- Dane ^talk 05:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a series of AfDs:

103.6.159.77 (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - it is an example of proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left for dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. overly specific with nothing not in the main article. No need for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Christmas Festival[edit]

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

Advertisement for non-notable local event. Lacks non trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term "local" is relative especially as we're talking about Kolkata, a metropolitan area of over 14,000,000 which is a larger population than 46 of the American states. Similar to something like a Hollywood Christmas Parade or Dallas Christmas Festival in the smaller cities of Los Angeles and Dallas which there is no consideration of deletion, it's a major festival and it's of no surprise coverage is easily found from even English language sources in a predominately non-English speaking country from non-local sources like the Times of India and the Deccan Herald.[4][5][6] Many more sources with significant coverage are available. Might this be a case of WP:BIAS? --Oakshade (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be notable. Times of India is a major newspaper in India and has an article focusing on this festival.2607:FEA8:1D60:3BF:FC9E:B095:FC2A:B49E (talk) 01:53, 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. standard practice DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi Arai[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASE/N. Drafted by the Hanshin Tigers, but never played in a regular season Nippon Professional Baseball game. Penale52 (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Hanshin Tigers as reliable statistics of his stats aren't readily available. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I don't see how a redirect to the team would be helpful, as he is not mentioned on the team page. Natg 19 (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only source literally tells us nothing other than some very basic characteristics. Non-notable, and I don't see the need to redirect. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 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 Keep as a week hasn't suggested anything else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanquish (Two Steps from Hell album)[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:NALBUM criteria yet as has only just been released. WP:TOOSOON in my opinion. Domdeparis (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It now does. Charted on Ultratop Flanders. Hang googles (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acording to this edit [7] it has charted on Billboard's Classical chart and therefore meets WP:NALBUM#2. Jbh ^Talk 03:41, 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 redirect to Audiomachine. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Existence (Audiomachine album)[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria WP:NALBUM Domdeparis (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the user is making a bunch of these pages and not adding anything else to them as well.--Jennica✿ / ^talk 23:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Audiomachine. Completely lacks notability for standalone article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Perhaps a weak redirect to Audiomachine, but upon review that article barely stands by itself as is. ^Avic _ennasis @ 17:16, 18 Kislev 5777 / 17:16, 18 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 Leon Koudelak. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Music from Spain, Mexico and Brazil[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Was a redirect, then this information was added. Turned back into a redirect, which was then reversed without rationale. Because of the generic nature of the title, it is difficult to research, but I could find no in-depth sourcing from reliable, independent sources to show that it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leon Koudelak. No sources, nothing that even hints at meeting WP:N. Main author of this article is a WP:SPA, and a persistent one at that, being active for five years and still only editing topics related to Leon Koudelak. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 22 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. Apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fabbri (novelist)[edit]

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

I had (obviously incorrectly) speedied this a year and a half ago when it was a new article, the speedy was declined and it stayed there, until recent edits popped it in my watchlist again.

The obvious concern is notability, in particular WP:AUTHOR. the only book review I found was [8], which I think falls under "passing mention". Maybe writing for children/young adults explains the lack of "real" review in the press, but well, we need some source. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - many young adult fiction books get reviewed, so if this hasn't been then it's possibly because this is not a notable author. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite being described as a "best-selling" author, no established notability through WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's clear none of this amounts to substance and he's not notable as an author with followed significance. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. I looked for sources earlier and didn't see much, but clearly Underwood meets GNG with the sources found by Muboshgu and WikiOriginal-9. Can someone do a rewrite on his college career and other activities? (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Underwood[edit]

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

Non-notable NFL player who has not appeared in a regular season NFL game and has only been on several teams' practice squads. He is currently in the news for dating Aly Raisman, but notability is not inherited. Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has coverage[9][10][11][12][13] The articles about him and Raisman contribute to his notability too as their relationship concerns them both. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with sources listed. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bigger question is should it be deleted because he hasn't played in an NFL football game, or should it be rewritten to reflect all of the other notable things he's done so far in his life? The sources linked above note he was an NCAA All-American, and it looks as though he's played some sort of active role in a (local?) community. Maybe a re-write with his college stats and other relevant info, and the NFL section not 100% of the entire article will make this pass WP:GNG? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the previous two posters; the article as written does not pass WP:GNG, but it appears that he has received sufficient mention in reliable sources for a passable article to be written (even if you don't count dating Aly Raisman, which could turn out to be temporary and trivial). AyaK (talk) 02:00, 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Girls: A Musical Parody[edit]

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

Non-notable musical. A PROD that I put on this article was removed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unfortunately lacking coverage in rs at present. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 6 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, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete and let girls learn - the article has to be expanded, not deleted. 79.238.99.2 (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NN. Probably grounds for a speedy CSD:A7. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:04, 22 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generation (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Not notable, article has no sources. Evking22 (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails WP:NBAND and WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long running Filipino rock band that had created great impact. I have improved the article by a number of new references in a bid to prove notability and keep the article. Here also some original music videos from them [26], [27], [28]] werldwayd (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail WP:RS, probably WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NBAND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:02, 22 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. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Langley[edit]

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

Appears to be self-promotion; subject not "notable" as per Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Sekicho (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Borderline. Seems to have reliable, in-depth source about him ([29]). One source however fails the requirement for multiple... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this proposal for deletion. On the notable point: the subject's most notable attribute is that he was the first foreigner in the Japanese Diet, which was covered by several news media sources as cited. Sam_Bourque (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE shows mostly articles that quote article subject rather than are about article subject. The Japan Times profile linked in the article is the one exception, and WP:GNG asks for multiple significant coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:24, 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. czar 07:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Shahi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NDIRECTOR and WP:GNG §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:55, 22 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T. Arif Ali[edit]

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

arif ali is a real person but not a notable personality Muhammed Anwar Baqavi (talk) 11:16, 6 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 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - From what I can see in English, I agree that he doesn't seem notable. There may be more in Hindi or Malayalam (I think JIH Kerala website is not a reliable source here). Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No proper sources mentioned and fails notability parameters. 59.177.72.166 (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 11:05, 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. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Xi chapter of Sigma Chi[edit]

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

Individual chapters of Greek Letter Organizations are not inherently notable, no individual chapter notability shown Naraht (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator. No indication that this chapter is anything other than MILL, and precedent says those sorts of pages shouldn't be kept. Primefac (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from original proposer, does anyone understand why the AFD has a category of Category:AfD debates (Media and music)?
Just got put into the wrong switch. I've fixed it. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:51, 22 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In situ[edit]

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

This collection of dictionary definitions (tagged as such since 2012) falls foul of WP:NOTDICT. There may be material here for Wiktionary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikt:in situ is a dictionary definition. This article with its 16711 characters (2730 words) "readable prose size" is not. — Sam Sailor 11:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, mere size does not demonstrate that something isn't a definition, though there is one difference here: this article is a list of many definitions. That says the term is used (in many similar ways) in different fields. But it's still a term, and dictionaries properly list meanings with numbered headings: Wikipedia articles should not. Pretty much every section of the article says that in situ is a term, and offers a local definition of it: great for Wiktionary and othr dictionaries, terrible for an encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, mere size doesn't do it, but it still is a case of WP:WORDISSUBJECT where the key is "... such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term.", and unsuitable for Wiktionary per wikt:Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not, and it is not a list of many definitions. — Sam Sailor 13:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of the ways that a phrase is used in different fields is still a dictionary definition, regardless of how long it is. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a list. — Sam Sailor 13:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation. Add the content to relevant articles, make it a disambiguation page linking to those articles. Prevalence 04:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate? Disambiguate how? — Sam Sailor 13:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not especially concerned with dictionary matters such as the etymology or grammar of the term. The bulk of the content explains how the concept applies in various fields. The concept appears in the title of numerous works such as In Situ Hybridization Histochemistry; Plant Genetic Conservation: The in situ approach; In Situ Assessment of Structural Timber; In Situ Remediation Engineering; &c. The concept is therefore quite important and a high-level page of this kind is helpful in bringing such common ideas together somewhat like a dab page. Andrew D. (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Andrew D.: this article is about the concept, not the word. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think referring to this article as a dictionary definition, or even a "list of the ways that a phrase is used", is a mischaracterization. Though there are indeed some listings that might be considered definitions, that's more a reason to expand those particular sections with a better discussion of how the concept is applied in that field than it is a reason to delete the whole article. Gnome de plume (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm also not seeing a WP:DICDEF here. This is a notable concept in many fields and for the most part the individual sections are encyclopaedic, though perhaps a few of the more obvious ones could do to be trimmed out. Joe Roe (talk) 01:53, 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 redirect to Rhetorical_situation#Lloyd_Bitzer. The content is all there in the page history if anybody wishes to perform a proper merge. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exigence (rhetoric)[edit]

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

Term is explicitly stated to be a "term", falling foul of WP:NOTDICT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not the place for definitions of all imaginable legal terms. Could move to Wiktionary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Rhetorical_situation#Lloyd_Bitzer, where the concept is mentioned. Per WP:ISATERMFOR, don't be fooled by suboptimal writing; this article is about the concept of exigence in the field of rhetoric, not just the term. While it starts out with a definition, as many good encyclopedia articles do, the next section is about the concept, not just the word. Exigence is one part of a rhetorical situation as described by Lloyd Bitzer, a notable rhetorician, along with audience and constraints. I don't know if there is enough sourcing out there for this particular concept to be notable. If not, then a natural merge target would be Rhetorical_situation#Lloyd_Bitzer. But I don't see a valid policy-based reason for deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Rhetorical situation. The term itself, as far as I know, is closely connected to Bitzer's "rhetorical situation". Closely connected enough to be covered in one article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The word exigence just seems to be used here in its ordinary sense of a pressing need. There is no special aspect to this in the field of rhetoric and so the page is redundant. Andrew D. (talk) 01:47, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antigenic Rift[edit]

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

Possible hoax. Although the person who coined this term exists, my searches found nothing about the subject (Google suggests the similar term Antigenic drift instead). The given source has no mention of this term. Adam9007 (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not exactly a hoax, but probably a misunderstanding, for antigenic shift, large changes in the surface antigens of viruses,that permit them to cross species barriers -- see the CDC report "How the Flu Virus Can Change: “Drift” and “Shift”" [30]. ("antigenic drift" is a term for small changes, as between different strains of flu viruses. The reported author of the phrase Robert Siegel (virologist) is a Professor (teaching) at Stanford, who has only published 2 papers in his entire career, neither of them on this topic and neither of them notable. He is not one of the authors of the paper cited here -- a rather famous paper, btw, cited over 700 times in Google Scholar, though not by him. He presumably used the phrase antigenic shift in a lecture, and the student taking notes misunderstood. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur, I asked DGG for his familiar analysis here as I questioned its factualness, but it's quite clear, regardless, that there's no substance for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No basis for an article, misunderstanding likely; thanks DGG for the convincing analysis.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete nothing here. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably just a misspelling or -understanding. — Sam Sailor 15:19, 20 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.

[1] Note to entrepreneurs: you are more likely to get your own WP article if you literally name your company a random but unique string of characters

[a]