Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 19 December 21 December >

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 keep. With no prejudice against renaming as suggested by multiple participants here, if a consensus on a title can be reached on the talk page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Tamils[edit]

Singapore Tamils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A redundant to Indian Singaporeans, not a notable ethnic group. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I think redirected the article maybe better. SA 13 Bro 12:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Indian Singaporeans, plausible search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, Singapore Tamils are one of the major ethnic group in Singapore, Tamil bring one of it's official languages, even if you think it's not a major ethnic group, no where in Wikipedia says that you can delete an article based on just it's not a major ethnic group how small or big the ethnic group it is. if you feel it's justifiable to delete Singapore Tamils, then will you delete Malayali Australian and hundreds of different articles relates to various people groups to be deleted as well? Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is no significant coverage or if the content has ben already covered, then we don't keep an article. If you feel other articles have been unjustifiably kept, please nominate them for deletion as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemongirl942: How the Singaporean government classifies its population doesn't dictate which articles are created on Wikipedia. All that matters is whether reliable sources discuss Singapore Tamils, which they do.
It's common for one large ethnic group to be sub-divided into smaller groups e.g Asian Americans and Chinese Americans or British Asian and British Indian. There is no reason why we can't have both Indian Singaporeans and Singapore Tamils. And as this article makes clear, not all Singapore Tamils are from India, many are from Sri Lanka. The article does have issues but none that merit deletion.--obi2canibetalk contr 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we divide larger ethnic groups, but this is a not needed here when the vast majority of information can be included/or is duplicated in another article (See WP:NOPAGE). The thing is that Tamils in Singapore (whether from Sri Lanka or India) are still classified as Indian Singaporeans where the term "Indian" is an ethnic term. The article Indian Singaporeans makes it clear that it cover both Tamils from India as well as from Sri Lanka. When an article already covers a topic, it becomes a WP:POVFORK to create another without a clear need. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear need - Indian Singaporeans is a very large article (nearly 80kB) and is good candidate for WP:SPINOUT. Tamils make up the largest part of "Indian" Singaporeans, therefore the first logical article for spin off is Singapore Tamils. The issues with duplicated content can be overcome by summarising the content in Indian Singaporeans. There are issues with Singapore Tamils but these can be overcome.--obi2canibetalk contr 15:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to vote again. Please see WP:NOPAGE and WP:POVFORK. When you created Singapore Tamils you copied content without attribution from Indian Singaporeans. Sri Lankans in Singapore are a separate nationality - the government classifies them as "others", not Indian. But the Tamils form the vast majority of Indian Singaporeans and have never been counted as anything other than Indian. Tamil Nadu expatriates in Singapore are not a notable group - in fact, I have always seen sources discussing them as Indian Singaporeans. If we don't have sources, we can't have an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article need to be kept for reasons: 1. Indian Singaporeans article clearly mentions it's just about Singapore Citizens of Indian descent, it doesn't mentions anything about Other Tamil people living in Singapore who possess Indian and Sri Lankan citizens. 2. There are significant difference among Indian Singaporeans and Other Tamils. [1][2] 3. There are about 400,000 Other Tamils living in Singapore who are not counted in Indian Singaporeans article.[3] 4. Also for your note, Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamil descent Singaporeans Also counted as Indian Singaporeans by Singapore government. 5. NRIs from Tamil Nadu are existing as separate community of sort in Singapore, though there is thin line of difference between Indian Singaporeans Tamils and Singapore Tamil Migrants from Tamil Nadu. [4]

References

  1. ^ "When Singapore Tamils visit India, they don't "go home", they leave their home". The Online Citizen. 4 August 2016.
  2. ^ "Rethinking Screen Encounters: Cinema and Tamil Migrant Workers in Singapore". www.screeningthepast.com.
  3. ^ "Recent Issue – Vol 88, No 1 – March 2015 | Pacific Affairs". www.pacificaffairs.ubc.ca.
  4. ^ "Singapore most preferred destination of Tamil diaspora - INDIA New England News". INDIA New England News. 23 March 2016.
Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are not getting the points. We don't create a new article unless absolutely necessary. In addition, you citation doesn't state that "Singapore Tamils" are NOT "Indian Singaporeans".The article as it is now contains a bunch of WP:OR. I will explain below. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about Undefined scope The article claims to be: Singapore Tamils refers to Tamil speaking people of Singapore, predominantly migrated to Singapore in recent times, who were distinct from Tamil speaking native Singaporeans Firstly this is not cited in any reliable source. Secondly if the article is about recent immigrants from Tamil Nadu, then it should be at Tamil Nadu diaspora. The content of the article is not significant - half of it is duplicated from Indian Singaporeans and the other half is WP:OR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not at all the same as Indian Singaporeans. Perhaps rename to Tamil Diaspora in Singapore.--Yellow Diamond (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if this is really a POVFork, but I'd support a merge.Yellow Diamond (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Articles is not a breach of WP:NOR, I have added enough citation to justify Singapore Tamil community is existing one, the word is also. Here is the reference from National Board of Libraries (Singapore)[1], Tamil community in Singapore includes both Indian, and Sri Lankan origin Tamil, it also include earlier migrants and recent ones. But the article Indian Singaporean refers only Indian origin Tamils who migrated to Singapore earlier. So, I suggest keep the article and help to improve it. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. Quote from Indian Singaporeans "Singapore's Indian community is characterised by an ethnic Tamil majority (54.18%) and a large number of smaller groups. Ethnic Tamils in Singapore include both Tamils from India and Sri Lankan Tamils". Indian Singaporeans covers both Indian Tamils and Sri Lankan Tamils. It also included the recent migrants (See "Contemporary period: 1990s – present"). At this point your article is a redudant content fork. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then why you have mentioned earlier Sri Lankans are categorized as other ethnic groups earlier. Hope you clarify things better rather conflicting your own views. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for goodness sake, "Sri Lankan" refers to a nationality in this context. Recent migrants from Sri Lanka in Singapore (who are Sinhalese) are NOT classified are Indians. They are classified as "others". But earlier migrants from Ceylon (as it was then known) were Tamils and they were classified as Indians. The article about Sri Lankans in Singapore it badly written an unsourced. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Singapore, National Library Board. "Tamil community | Infopedia". eresources.nlb.gov.sg.
The Singapore Department of Statistics defines 'Indians' as a 'race' (or 'ethnic group'), comprising "persons of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan origin such as Tamils, Malayalis, Punjabis, Bengalis, Singhalese etc this is from Indian Singaporean article. You are contradicting your view once again. :( it's seems you just don't want article on Singapore Tamils sub-group among Indians, but seems okay with other Sub groups. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no double standards. What you are not realising is that we don't have articles about individual ethnicities titled Sinhalese in Singapore, Punjabis in Singapore, Bengalis in Singapore. We only have Sri Lankans in Singapore and Indians in Singapore (which was later moved to Indian Singaporeans but it still one article). By a long standing consensus we do have articles about Nationality intersecting Nationality, provided a significant coverage exists. But we don't create individual ethnicity pages if the information is already covered in other articles. This is called a content fork and it not useful. Malayali Australians which you cited is another good example of a content fork (and it should be redirected/merged as well). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Winnan Tirunallur: There are no such articles on any of these sub-groups in Singapore because they are bundled together. This is an encyclopaedic article being discussed, not an exercise in WP:BLUDGEONing a single editor because you're pushing the envelope in order to challenging that editor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per Kanags, "Tamil is an official language of Singapore, and Tamils are one of the majority ethnic group".Shankar2001 (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, whilst there is significant overlap between Indian Singaporeans and Tamils in Singapore, these are still distinct concepts and an article on Tamils in Singapore (and Tamil language and culture in the country) is definately a legit article subject. --Soman (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources have been shown on this article that Tamils are regarded as separate from native Indians in Singapore. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources have been shown on this article that Tamils are regarded as separate from native Indians in Singapore? Where? I saw this which mentions "Singapore Tamils" and on reading the article it uses "Indians" not Tamils. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note Tamils are defined in Wikipedia as "Tamils, are an ethnic group who speak Tamil as their mother tongue....."; they are a sub-group of native Indians in Singapore. You don't need word to word something to define as "Tamils".Shankar2001 (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - arguments provided seem to point towards this group being both distinct and notable Spiderone 09:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not a huge fan of WP:OTHERCRAP arguments, but in this case, there is quite a bit of other crap. Seems overall like a relevant demographic classification. TimothyJosephWood 13:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an article about demographics, but that of 'ethnicity'. While there may be arguments for a SPIN-OFF article, the entire article was lifted from the Indian Singaporeans article without any form of discussion. I fail to see what cats have to do with whether an article is merited or not: they're categories, and do not serve to define articles. WP:OTHERSTUFF cuts both ways. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity is a demographic classification? And the category was provided as a list of examples of similar articles, for example, that we have a 35k article on all 15k Eurasians in Singapore. When there are a half million Tamils, I find it hard to believe that a full article isn't warranted in principle. Having said that, I wouldn't be opposed at all to draftifying it if the creator wants to beef it up some, and perhaps request input from related WikiProjects. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as sufficient given the similarities. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, better renamed to Singaporean Tamils. This is a concept distinct from Indian Singaporeans, which include a significant number of non-Tamil people such as Punjabis. Lysimachi (talk) 19:10, 27 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 another week has suggested Keep is in fact the outcome here (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 152[edit]

London Buses route 152 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable bus route Nordic Nightfury 09:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 09:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 09:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. I only managed to find one online article that the bus route is the subject of. It is unlikely to be the subject of offline sources such as those from the London Omnibus Traction Society.   Tentinator   11:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing remarkable about this route. Lists of references about contract transfers doesn't establish notability. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent -- We eliminated many bus route articles several years ago, but left at least some of the London ones, because they had a significant stability and duration. We should either delete them all or none, or some but only according to some agreed criterion. I might well vote for them all to be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the bus route has been around since at least 1936 as this revision of the article shows. There may be other bits from that revision that could be extracted and sourced. Generally speaking bus routes are significant, permanent parts of cities, which tend to be consistent and not often changed. London bus routes are well discussed in a variety of books; and normally individual bus routes are discussed in local papers etc. when there are major changes as can be seen in the revision of the article I have linked to. There is a small trickle of bus routes nominated for deletion every-so-often; the main argument of those voting delete are similar every time, thus there should be a large scale deletion nomination articles of such bus articles where there is actually significant community input as opposed to the same editors popping up every time. Delete all, or establish a notability criteria as this 'whack a mole' approach to deletion of these articles are inconsistent and ultimately overall harming the encyclopedia- an article that could be deleted one day could be kept the next depending on the editors that show up to the deletion discussion. Edit: oh and more sources. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: since I voted to keep this article, significant progress has been made to source and restore the historically valuable information linked to in the diff above, and as such, my keep vote not only still applies, but I am yet more affirmative in my opinion that this article should be kept. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 00:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC) (Original[1], RM/Updated 03:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. Bus routes are major parts of community infrastructure. They aree normally reasonabley permaent and appropriate for articles, just as similar rail infrastructure. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nothing notable here. Jeni (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Nothing of encyclopedic interest here.Charles (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Per DGG and Jcc. And also due to the fact that more sourced information has been found and added. There also needs to be more consistency rather than nominating bus route articles for deletion in the first place. There is also no need for a deletion discussion as the article can be redirected if believed that it is not a notable route (but this has some sourced information, unlike some others which I have redirected without the need of a discussion). All bus routes should be notable IMO, as they are an integral part of a city. Class455 (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Class455, can you please advise as to which part of Wikipedia:Speedy keep applies here? Jeni (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict). A small bit of Part 2c applies. IIRC, The last three London bus articles nominated for deletion were given the same reason why they should be deleted and have all been kept. But the main reason is that I'm sick and tired of seeing bus route articles being nominated for deletion without any attempt to find sources to prove notability when some are available, its time these discussions stopped and we actually did something to improve the articles rather than hinder them! Unless there is actually something wrong with them (something that meets the speedy deletion criteria), which isn't the case here. We should start a discussion at WT:LT or at Wikiproject Buses and create a drive to improve the quality of bus route articles. Class455 (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The last 3[2][3][4] all closed as delete? And in all 3, you !voted delete. Do I detect that you perhaps have a bit of bias towards London articles here? WP:SPEEDY doesn't apply here, please strike out 'speedy'. Note: This comment was made before Class455 edited their initial comment in an attempt to make me look stupid.[5] Jeni (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean non-London bus routes discussions. I don't have a bias towards London Bus routes, even though I live in Greater London, as I have myself redirected a few routes for lack of notability rather than nominating them for deletion, and voted to redirect London Buses route 320. Also, I will not strike "speedy" out as I am entitled to my opinion. And I will keep on !voting "speedy keep" until something is done to address the problem we clearly have. At the moment, I've got more important things to do, but next week, I should be able to start a discussion as I'm on Christmas break, unless someone else does. Class455 (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the end of February 2016, Jeni, you have commented on the deletion of 57 bus routes and voted to delete 56 of them. "Do I detect a bit of bias" here? Don't call the kettle black. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again more content has been found and referenced. Even more of a reason why I'm !voting speedy keep. Class455 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to this source it is a self-published fansite and not a reliable source for Wikipedia.Charles (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually consider that a reliable source, I've just seen it. It has maps and timetables extracted/scanned from older timetables and there are pictures to back up the evidence. I don't see why not. Some "self published fansites" can be reliable. If you don't think so, WP:RSN is this way. Class455 (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter what you think. Wikipedia does not accept self-published sources as reliable.Charles (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The website in question displays scanned in timetables. It is the reliability of the scanned London Transport timetables/Red Books sources that matters, not that of the website which is hosting it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like copyright violation by the website owner then. Copying the timetables into another site does not make them a secondary source.Charles (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am led to believe that there is nothing wrong with the usage of primary sources to prove direct claims- in this article, the use of a primary source (a London Transport timetable) to prove that the bus route ran every 20 minutes in 1962 is allowed. Not that I think information like that is particularly relevant, but it's not trying to be used as a secondary source. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~Yes, if we need that information the primary source can be cited directly. What this secondary self-published site does not do is contribute to establishing notability of the topic. It is not significant or reliable coverage to meet WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current article is not problematic and it seems easy to improve by references to sources such as The Fundamental Principles of Road Passenger Transport Operation. Our policy is to keep such pages. Andrew D. (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without reading it I very much doubt The Fundamental Principles of Road Passenger Transport Operation is written specifically about this route as would be required to contribute to establishing notability.Charles (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are completely missing the point here. For a subject to meet WP:GNG there need to be secondary sources written specifically about it, not just mentioning it as part of a wider topic. And "Try to fix problems" only applies to content appropriate to an encyclopedia, which is determined by WP:GNG, which has not been shown to be met for this subject.Charles (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."  So, significant coverage can be as little as one sentence at a time, in numerous sources, and satisfy WP:GNG.  Nor is WP:N a content guideline, with an exception for involving lists.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (also keep Route 109). I haven't followed the discussions regarding the bus route articles that actually have been deleted (I just stumbled over these two), but if they can be properly referenced, I do not see a problem in (some of) them being resurrected. However, as a general note, if someone knows about books, journals, or other references that are not online, please cite them in the articles at the appropriate places. There need not be a whole book dedicated to a topic, but there should be a chapter or a major section. Also, if you find information in an article that does not seem to be properly referenced, please tag it instead of deleting it. --Schlosser67 (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are some books available, particularly from enthusiast websites which sells them (such as Ian Allan) and museums such as the London Transport Museum or the London Bus Museum in Brooklands about this bus route, and others. Class455 (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the article appears to be reasonably well sourced at this point and provides relevant information one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it might be difficult to believe for some, but a lot of these bus routes and transportation infrastructure are encyclopedic topics and the combination of all the coverage in the sourcing demonstrates that. --Oakshade (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:52, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Fiadeiro[edit]

Isabel Fiadeiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Only sources included are to artists own website/self written items. A few articles mention an Isabel Fiadeiro but do not seem to be about the same person. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 12:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG Avicennasis @ 16:57, 18 Kislev 5777 / 16:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:51, 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) 10:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James G. Pappas[edit]

James G. Pappas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable art teacher. Fails WP:ARTIST. Yintan  09:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:50, 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. Mkdwtalk 08:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Trachtenberg[edit]

Geoffrey Trachtenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, hi Seelie, we need a reason for this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sure thing, Coolabahapple--sorry. As I've mentioned in the edits of the page itself, I don't believe notability has been sufficiently established. This page was created for profit by a user who has been repeatedly blocked from editing because of non-disclosure of paid editing. Nevertheless, I gave it the benefit of the doubt and stuck a non-notability tag on the page. Seven months later, still *crickets*. Seelie (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
great, thanks. :) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. TJRC (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little indication of notability. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage by third party sources that show notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:36, 27 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. General consensus to keep among the participants, who have added sources for the subject's notability concerns. (non-admin closure) st170etalk 00:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Elliot[edit]

Jason Elliot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: dubious notability as travel writer; wrote only two books; only of which (Mirrors of the Unseen: Journeys in Iran) was reviewed. known and/or reviewed. Quis separabit? 09:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "wrote only two books" and?, WP:NAUTHOR does not require writing more than two books ie. "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.", a good example of this is Harper Lee. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, reviews include: An Unexpected Light - New York Times - "An Unexpected Light is often unexpectedly funny and constantly perceptive, but it is also profound."[6], Mirrors of the Unseen - The Guardian - "In these sad and dirty days of demonisation and prejudice few books could be more apposite than Jason Elliot's thoughtful portrait of Iran."[7]; The Network - New York Times - "An unlikely candidate for the espionage genre, Elliot is known primarily for “An Unexpected Light,” a much-praised narrative of his travels in Afghanistan published a decade ago. And here he takes us back to that place and time — the innocent days when the words “Al Qaeda” and “Osama bin Laden” would have drawn blank stares at the water cooler."[8]; The Telegraph - "Vividly descriptive, wittily discursive, archly plotted and unusually paced, this radiates the charm of an author as curious about the Vauxhall property market as he is about convoluted Afghan politics."[9], to mention just a few. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote two books. The books were reviewed. How does that enhance his notability? I acknowledge the books were published. Quis separabit? 23:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article needs a lot of work, and I'll work on it a bit. I have never seen such an external links section bigger than the article. However, when I add travel to his name in the customized search, I get 1,870 hits which include the New York Times at the top, meeting WP:GNG--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, revisiting this afd, "He wrote two books. The books were reviewed. How does that enhance his notability?" - have a look at WP:NAUTHOR no. 3, i only put a bit of if in my above "keep" here it is in full - 3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews., if you had read my keep you would have seen 3 books, are they well known?, unexpected light in 1200 libraries, Mirrors of the Unseen in 700+ libraries, and The Network, oh look a 3rd book, in 600+ libraries, so well known, plus no.3 above requires, in addition, multiple reviews, also cited above, so that is how (well known) books enhance a person's notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:00, 27 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) st170etalk 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Osgood[edit]

Hugh Osgood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is an autobiographical piece about a person of limited notability, that cannot be edited to make it into an encyclopaedic article. Furthermore a lack of verifiable references mean that I have been unable to check any facts, meaning that the authenticity of this Biography of a Living Person cannot be verified - reason enough, by itself, to make this article subject for deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The moderator of an inter-denominational grouping of churches has a role of similar status to a bishop (or even above), from which I conclude that that the subject is notable. However there is rather too much authored by the subject, which is contrary to policy on sources, not to mention COI issues. My guess is that the content is verifiable, though not all RS-verified. Nevertheless, some of it comes from RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:49, 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 no consensus. Michig's links remain unaddressed and, at first glance, seem to indicate notability.  Sandstein  18:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Joe Ebola and the Children MacNuggits[edit]

Bobby Joe Ebola and the Children MacNuggits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable under the criteria of WP:MUSIC, local San Fransisco act that put out their own releases. No indication of chart success, nationwide tours or a major label release. The article is largely promotional in tone and has a considerable CoI contribution. Sourcing is very poor and largely based on primary sources (Discogs and the band's own website) or local SF newspapers. Nothing to suggest that the band have a national profile of any sort. Karst (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously promotional, and not significant, but that name.... wtf? Layla, the remover (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:48, 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 00:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Stewart (musician)[edit]

Benjamin Stewart (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail the notability guideline for musicians. None of his released albums seem to have achieved anything of significance, and while the claim "The song "Innocence", from the album, peaked in the charts for ambient music" would be sufficient claim to notability I can't find any evidence for it having occurred, although "ambient music" chart is a broad enough term that perhaps I'm simply not looking in the right place. Nor do any of the associated acts listed seem to be notable, based on my web searching. C628 (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisted in the hope of discussion DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly as you know an article is trivial and unconvincing when the best there is to cite is his own website (!!) and it's also clear none of this amounts to substance hence delete is the solution for it. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:48, 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 redirect to Glasgow_Corporation_Tramways#.22Coronation.22_cars. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow tram 1245[edit]

Glasgow tram 1245 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be notable and is seemingly insignificant. Snood1205 (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The preservation of this unit is already described at Glasgow_Corporation_Tramways#.22Coronation.22_cars. That seems sufficient as I am not seeing individual notability. (Personal side-note: Memories of standing in a downpour as a small boy with my father watching The Last Night of the Trams as the units, presumably including this one, were driven to Pollokshields.) AllyD (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wp:CRUFT. It doesn't warrant the need for a separate article, unless explicitly notable. Nordic Nightfury 08:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the above mentioned page. Does not need a standalone article.Charles (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Charles. It's not individually notable enough for a standalone article, but given the coverage in the tramways article it's not an unlikely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Charles. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:48, 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 redirect to The Godfather II (video game). Closing this discussion because I don't believe a third re-list would benefit it at all. The only keep vote has not addressed the issue of notability, which is the reason why this article is here in the first place. (non-admin closure) st170etalk 00:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carmine Rosato Family[edit]

Carmine Rosato Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above is utter nonsense, a silly attempt at wikilawyering that has not worked once. BEFORE is a not a policy, and there is no requirement in AfD to follow such. It is simply a suggestion on how to deal with such articles. This is another form of consensus-seeking discussion, and it is far more productive than putting a tag on a dead page that nobody visits. Regardless of the intentions behind it, this content is not suitable for Wikipedia, so it should be removed. Deletion is most preferable to prevent its recreation, but redirecting is fine as well. However much you disagree with how I do things, at least try to provide an actual argument. TTN (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I have no opinion on this article at this time, I agree that the above comment is problematic wikilawyering. HW: If you think the article should be kept, please provide some evidence and/or an argument for the subject's notability. If you think the content could be merged somewhere, or the article could be turned into a redirect, please identify a target. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Godfather II (video game). Extremely minor fictional characters, whose article is nothing but unsourced cruft. Looking for information on the characters, the only hits that come up are things like game guides for the video game they come from, which does not establish notability. I mean, I'd be fine with a complete Delete, really, but a redirect is appropriate as well. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Godfather II (video game) per above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 15:48, 27 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. Closing this as no consensus (default to keep) as I highly doubt a third relist would benefit or encourage discussion. Some more sources have been added by contributors to address WP:GNG guidelines. (non-admin closure) st170etalk 15:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Messina Dysert[edit]

Gina Messina Dysert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I still confirm my PROD as the history and numbered accounts confirm this was part of a paid advertising campaign so policy WP:NOT applies as it is, enough said as we all know there's no compromise s with both paid advertising and numerous accounts involved with such activities. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough impact to pass notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The subject of the article barely passes GNG with multiple RS covering her and her writing (Please see my clean up and additions in the article itself). I am not sure where SwisterTwister is finding evidence of a "paid advertising campaign." Looking through the article's history, I'm not seeing it, unless you are asserting there is sockpuppetry, I don't see how you can tell this is part of a paid campaign. Please be more specific in such assertions. Further, there is no need to hold the subject of the article to the standard of PROF, GNG is enough. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No impact on the world of scholarship is found. Only GS citations are self-citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
You are holding the subject to a higher standard than GNG. She does not need to pass PROF to be notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:08, 27 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 00:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Fast Track NLP[edit]

New Fast Track NLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article by a single-purpose account of questionable neutrality about (what reads like) pseudo-science. The sources cited are not good, and a Google search is throwing up nothing of value. This is not a page which should be on Wikipedia. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It should be noted that the sources present in the article do not actually talk about the concept of "New Fast Track NLP" at all. Rather, they are links to information on the various other pseudo-sciences mentioned, which the article then synthesizes together to talk about this subject. So, really, there actually are no sources in the article at all that talk about this concept at all, and the only hits in searches come from either mirrors of this article or from unreliable sources like Youtube, making it pretty clear that this does not come close to meeting the GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with 64.183.45.226 regarding the synthesis and will add it looks a bit promotional, too. I also could not find independent reliable sources about this particular variation on NLP. The topic of NLP is notable fringe, but this subtopic seems to fail notability per WP:GNG. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 19:14, 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rafał Zaborowski[edit]

Rafał Zaborowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not played in fully professional league according to this: http://www.90minut.pl/kariera.php?id=25760. Also a lot of false information. Couldn't find anything on him playing for Wolfsburg or signing contract with Piast Gliwice Dudek1337 (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:32, 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 procedural close. Author moved the page into draft space. (non-admin closure) st170etalk 00:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York City Public School Alumni[edit]

List of New York City Public School Alumni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A nearly indiscriminate list of alumni of a school SYSTEM with the potential of becoming too big to handle. The Banner talk 22:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lists of alumni by school either in the article about the school - or if long enough, as a standalone list - make sense. Lists by school district or system do not. Such a list overlaps all such lists by school; and if complete, will be redundant. As an experiment, I looked at Andrew Jackson High School (Queens). That article records eight notable alumni; only one of which is included in the big list under discussion.
List of lists of New York City public school alumni, with links to relevant list articles or sections, could be a worthwhile navigation tool - which this list isn't. Narky Blert (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page is not solely a random list of alumni-- it includes narrative about the history and impact of New York City public school alumni based on outside sources. It also follows the WP:GNG Notability Guideline because while many articles on the web discuss New York City and its public school alumni, this is the first and only Wikipedia page on the topic. All of the people listed on the page are considered notable in accordance with the Notability Guideline as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobBurgess89 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is not notability, the problem is the width of the area covered. Usually such a list is made up by school not by school system. Potentially, you can get a list of many thousands successful and notable alumni... The Banner talk 11:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, the author has moved the page in question into draft space. TimothyJosephWood 15:44, 27 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) 10:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Marie Jennings[edit]

Eugenia Marie Jennings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A clear case of BLP1E. A woman committed a crime, and the only reason she received any media attention is she happened to be the first person President Obama pardoned. Nothing before or after has provided significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: agree with nom as clearly non-notable under BLP1E. Do all beneficiaries of presidential or gubernatorial or whosever orders of commutation and/or pardon get their own articles? Quis separabit? 21:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notable only for one event, not a notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 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 speedy keep. Nomination Withdrawn: Agreeing with other editors that educational institutions are notable...Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saroj Institute of Technology and Management[edit]

Saroj Institute of Technology and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable technical institute. Fails WP:GNG... Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep as a degree-awarding school, we keep those regardless. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, educational institutions high school or above are assumed notable if they can be proven to exist. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 13:26, 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 00:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ozoti̇te Smart Eji̇fe[edit]

Ozoti̇te Smart Eji̇fe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally PRODed this, but then discovered it had been deleted that way in the past and then recreated, so taking it here. This is a non-notable player who does not play in a fully professional league (I'm not actually sure if the team exists, his page seems to be the only Google result I can find.) As such, he fails WP:NFOOTY and I can find not references that satisfy WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't pass speedy criteria. This isn't an article about a totally unremarkable person: there is at least some claim of notability, and although it's a BLP, it's not completely unreferenced. I completely agree that it should be deleted, though. If the club articles existed I'd recommend redirecting it. --Slashme (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:32, 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solodev[edit]


Solodev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We had an article on this software/company from 2007 until this August, when it was PRODded on the basis of a notability concern. The current form was then submitted as a draft and languished in AfC for a while. Although there is coverage in local press and some other sources, I don't think the company meets WP:CORP, but at the request of the creator I've moved the draft to mainspace and nominated it for deletion to get a wider consensus. – Joe (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Yes, there is local press on the company because it's based out of Orlando so it's covered by Orlando media because it's a major tech company in Orlando. It's also written about in Georgia, California, Philadelphia, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Las Vegas. The company is also featured in national publications like Inc. 5000, TechRepublic, ITBriefcase, ZDNET, and NetworkWorld.com, as well as industry specific publications like CMSCritic and CMSWire, not to mention being listed on the Amazon Web Services Marketplace. —comment added by mattmclaren (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Mike here from CMS Critic, we've covered Solodev for a long time, they are not only a worldwide company with an established CMS, they also recently won an award from us based on our readers choice as Best Cloud CMS. While I understand Wikipedia's desire to reduce spammy pages, this simply isn't one of them. I'd be happy to discuss further if required. — Cmscritic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • KEEP: I don't really see how notability is even an issue here. I'm in DevOps so I think I can speak to the notability of enterprise software. This company is a long term Amazon Web Services Partner and first web content management system built for AWS, they're an Inc. 5000 multi-million dollar software company, they're competing with WordPress, Sitecore, Sitefinity, and doing well according to their revenues in Inc. 5000. Much smaller web content management systems are on Wikipedia. I say Keep. — Webdevops (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC) (UTC). WP:SOCKSTRIKE — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The above users all appear to have been canvassed off-wiki. Please be aware that this is not a vote, it is a discussion amongst editors on whether to keep the article based upon Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In this case the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability, which in brief states that we can only cover topics that have been the subject of significant, in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Arguments based on personal opinions or achievements of the company that are not reflected in third party coverage will carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus by the closing administrator. – Joe (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've notified the AfC reviewers who previously declined this draft about this AfD. – Joe (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The keep !voters look like SPAs. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. With all due respect to Mike from CMS Critic, "Solodev, winners of our "Best Cloud CMS" award are pleased to announce [...]" does not strike me as independent coverage - at best that's a rehashed press release, full of superlatives. Huon (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Mattmclaren and Webdevops are  Confirmed sock puppets.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amazon Web Services is notable , but not every Amazon Web Services Partner is notable. WordPress is notable , but not everyone who competes with it is notable. It's only written about in industry publications that try to cover everything in the field, notable or not. Such trade publicationsare very valuable for those in the field, but they do not show notability . DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not only was I the PRODer but I also declined the AfC, because it's quite clear this is all PR and any attempts make it otherwise still become PR, that's damning enough for us and our policies explicit suggest deletion. SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as current article text focuses on product catalog than insights into the company. Better rewritten ... Devopam (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Local sources don't establish notability for companies. Other sources are not independent. I was unable to find independent sources elsewhere. ~Kvng (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - it seemed a bit, shall we say, unusual, to move a draft to mainspace just to AFD it. But It seems it was agreed to[20], even if the drafter may not have understood what a bad idea that was. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would you have suggested? It was shaping up to be yet another one of the perpetually submitted and declined drafts that clog up AfC. I tried advising the author not to re-submit it but clearly they weren't happy to follow that advice. At the end of the day AfC is an optional process. It felt bitey to insist that my word on its notability was final, or to try and hide the fact that the author could simply move it to mainspace themselves at any time. So rather than going through the motions and winding up here anyway, I cut straight to AfD. – Joe (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE-DRAFT - this draft should of never been moved to mainspace. It can be worked on back in Draft space until such time as notability is better established. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creator of the draft explicitly asked me to move it to mainspace, and is now indef blocked for using sockpuppets. I don't see it being worked on further. I think it would be better to reach a more conclusive consensus on whether the company is notable or not. – Joe (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Joe. The topic is either notable or it is not. Let's finish our notability assessment. ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Solodev notable is that they are among the first, if not the first, CMS to be based on AWS Cloud. They have customers internationally on this, even in Denmark /Janus Boye
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burak Oguz Saguner[edit]

Burak Oguz Saguner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. The festivals that the person has won awards in are minor, and in the case of the Canberra Short Film Festival, not even in the top category. Secondary source mentions are passing in nature. agtx 20:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable director of photography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete would not take much more to scrape over I think. Just a bit TOOSOON at the moment. Aoziwe (talk) 13:20, 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 merge to Flanaess. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk Wars[edit]

Greyhawk Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Flanaess. Though, if any reliable, non-primary sources can be found to corroborate the information present in the article on the event's real-life background and reception, it may be worth keeping. However, I was not able to find anything during my searches, so I have to recommend a Merge at this point. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I agree with 64.183.45.226. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Romero[edit]

Victor Romero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears not to meet our criteria for notability. Has started a cable channel which we've determined to be non-notable, and appears to have done nothing else of note. Two hits on Google News, of which one is PR Newswire. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article was previously longer; it's been reduced by removal of (a) copyright violations, (b) WP:BLP violations and (c) some unreferenced content. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find no evidence of notability for this person. Sources I find are all press releases or affiliated to a business on behalf of which he's arranged a deal. The article about the Bonjour America organization was itself deleted as non-notable. Largoplazo (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. The one reference is a four-sentence page about him on a web site which describes its purpose as to "highlight moves and accomplishments of Latinos in the media and news about the industry" - i.e. to promote or publicise them. That four sentence page does not come anywhere near to showing notability. A Google search for just "Victor Romero" produces almost entirely hits about other, more notable, people of that name. Adding various attempts at disambiguation to the search produces nothing of any value. For example, from a search for "Victor Romero" Bonjour the first page of hits are the page cited as a reference, his Facebook account, a laudatory page about him on the web site of his company, his Twitter account, this Wikipedia article, a Wikipedia article about his company (which has been deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonjour America Media Group), and three Linkedin accounts for other people of the same name (which for some reason Google lists even though they don't mention "Bonjour"). The next page of hits is no better. A Google search for "Victor Romero" "New Line Television" is even worse: it produces a grand total of one hit, namely this Wikipedia article. "Victor Romero" "New Line TV" gives ten hits, none of them providing evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There isn't one good secondary source available for this. As the company was deemed to be non notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonjour America Media Group, I doubt the President would be notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:14, 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 redirect to Flanaess. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stonehold[edit]

Stonehold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Flanaess. Yet another fictional location with no notability. If some reliable sources can be found to support any of the information here, then a Merge would be appropriate, but there are none present in the article, and I can not find any while searching, so a Redirect seems the most fitting for now. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural Keep given there's been no listed deletion basis of why this is of concern (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dávid Korányi[edit]

Dávid Korányi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

inaccurate Dkoranyi (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Korányi may not be notable, but a better researched reason for deletion needs to be given than this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article does need better sources, being the top national security advisor to the prime minister of a country is a high enough level office to pass notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The reason given that the article should be deleted was because it's "inaccurate". The article looks to be based upon the biography (mid page) at Atlantic Council, where is is currently a director - with other citations added for good measure. I am not finding that the information is inaccurate, but I am not finding a lot of information about him, either. I am searching by the name in the article title + David Koranyi, which is more successful. A lot of the things that I am finding are that he's a contributor (CNN) or profiles for him as a speaker or contributor to published works, but not a comprehensive article about him.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep - No valid rationale for deletion given. Carrite (talk) 15:04, 27 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 (closing it early per WP:SNOW). Huon (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Square Nebula Explanation[edit]

Red Square Nebula Explanation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:PROD, so wasting everyone's time doing this the long way round. To repeat my original prod rationale, Obvious content fork of Red Square Nebula, created because the creator didn't like the existing version of that article but wasn't allowed to change it to his preferred wording. Wikipedia isn't Google Knol; when there's a dispute over the wording of an article, we don't host multiple versions of that article and let the reader upvote their favorite. All that aside, this is a fairly obvious of WP:SYN, since none of the references claim that this nebula is created by electrical pinches in Birkeland currents. The purported justification for contesting the proposed deletion was "There is a clear reference, reference 5, where it is explained that"—I'll leave it readers to judge for themselves how reliable Holoscience.com is as a source. ‑ Iridescent 19:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)  ‑ Iridescent 19:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Iridescent claims that I was not allowed to change an article to my preferred wording; this is not true, I was attempting to add extremely relevant content with references, but my changes were constantly deleted and called names such as "fringe" and "bizarre". There was not explanation as to why valid information was being deleted by what were clearly veteran Wikipedia editors, only the name calling. When I attempted to question them on why they were removing valid information and discuss the information itself, they made it personal saying they would block me, and the information. Iridescent also mistakenly claims above that that there is no reference to "since none of the references claim that this nebula is created by electrical pinches in Birkeland currents".. now he is changing it to dispute reference 5. It is also mentioned in reference 4. Reference 5 was from a lecture given at the University of Maryland; you can view the speech at around 31 minutes in. From what I have provided, there should be no valid reason for not allowing this information to be posted. I feel like I am the victim of Wikipedia heavyweights, that just want to throw their weight around and silence valid content, even if they don't like it. If you are denying plasma and electric pinches and Birkeland currents, you are denying reality, as those have been proven long ago, Birkeland having won a nobel prize. To envision an electric pinch, or z-pinch in a Birkeland current does not take much imagination once you understand what is going on. To try and imagine it when you have been taught, wrongly, that stars are powered by fusion your whole life, is definitely difficult and painful. Either way, yes, let us leave it to readers to judge for themselves how reliable science journals are, when they are still teaching fusion, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Hhowardroark (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what Wikipedia is. We do not care whether what we say is right or not; we exist only to summarize what the current mainstream opinion is on any given topic. (If Wikipedia had existed in Copernicus's day, our cosmology articles would be squarely geocentric.) If you have a view that isn't the one which dominates the mainstream literature, there are any number of appropriate websites for you to promote it, but we're not one of them. ‑ Iridescent 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as an obvious WP:POVFORK. This is an encyclopedia that follows accepted science rather than leading it, so, even if this theory is true and a great scientific breakthrough, we don't say so until it has been accepted by the scientific community. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC): Thank you very much for clarifying what Wikipedia is. I had no idea. I am sure that the majority of the readers of Wikipedia would like to know that information as well, and it really should be published as a disclaimer on the top or bottom of all of your pages, that you don't care whether what you say is right or not; it is only a consensus of mainstream opinion. I cannot imagine this site getting much funding with that as the tag line for getting donations. Either way, I sincerely appreciate your candidness in this matter. If having a consensus is a requirement, then would it be possible to change the article title to just say Red Square Nebula, Electric Universe Theory Explanation, or something similar; this would meet the requirement for consensus, because it is stating that it is a theory, which it is, and everyone can agree on that. You can either merge it with the other article or continue on its own. I would prefer not to merge with the other article, as the other article does not say anything, it just says they don't know what causes it; the scientific community does have a consensus that they have no idea what-so-ever could be causing the Red Square Nebula... yet somehow says they don't think it is the electric universe theory? Please explain. Have you provided any references that the electric universe theory has been disproved. Apparently the University of Maryland is extremely interested, as are others all over the Earth. Scientific consensus would actually require constant polling of scientists; do you have any references that you polled the entire scientific community and that they have listened to the electric universe theories and have stated they are wrong and not believable? I only see about two references in the Red Square Nebula article that just say it was discovered, and they don't know what caused it... maybe we should tell them. I would love to hear your thoughts on this, even in terms of just getting a general consensus of the scientific community on this topic, and how to go about that, or if you already did go about it, could you tell me when it was done, and what the results were. Was it this month, or last year, or a decade ago? Were the results close, with say 49% believing it, 51% not believing? And who was polled, was it one scientist's paper in a journal or article? I know you are saying it is quantity of believers in something, not quality, so please show me the quantity. Awaiting your thoughts. Thanks.Hhowardroark (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the link which appears at the bottom of all 60,838,601 pages on Wikipedia explaining exactly what Wikipedia does and how it operates, which leads in turn to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which explains our policies on undue weight and fringe theories? (I particularly advise reading this section.) Or possibly the first, very large link on our main page, which gives a more general view of Wikipedia's purpose and mechanisms? Or possibly Wikipedia:Five pillars, heavily linked throughout the site, which explains Wikipedia's non-negotiable core policies and is the head of a tree from which you can access all our other key policies? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and we make no secret of what our purpose is and how we aim to achieve it. ‑ Iridescent 21:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for responding to the first part of what I wrote. I am more interested in the second part about how you determine consensus, and whether I can post the entry as a theory. If you have say you need a scientific consensus, can you show me how consensus is determined, or is it just your opinion on the scientific consensus?Hhowardroark (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A further note on reading the 5 pillars; I see nothing about scientific consensus; however I do see pillar #2:

In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view".

And then pillar #5, there are no firm rules. #2 does say it needs reliable sources, and I did provide plenty of those, that show there are people from Universities that believe this theory... so I don't understand what the problem is; you also seem to be breaking pillar #4, being open and welcome to newcomers. Not only that, you keep using the pronoun we; when you say "we", do you mean editors of Wikipedia? Because if so, I am part of that we now to. Shouldn't you be saying I, or do you speak for me now too?Hhowardroark (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When we (yes, we refers to all Wikipedia editors, or at least those who follow Wikipedia's policies) speak of consensus on Wikipedia, it doesn't have anything to do with scientific consensus; it is solely consensus among Wikipedia editors about many things. See WP:CON for more info. Additionally, while WP:NPOV is a core Wikipedia policy, it's augmented by guidelines like WP:FRINGE, which says that especially minor viewpoints should not be presented in a equal light with widely accepted ones (see WP:FALSEBALANCE, part of NPOV). As far as I can tell, your sources don't show that this is anything but a fringe theory. In fact, the sources you have that even mention this theory are by or in reference to figures like Wal Thornhill (a physicist who eschews math, [21]) and Tom Wilson (who has a PhD in plant physiology). Additionally, the sources appear to be either published by the figures themselves ([22]; see WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:RSSELF) or heavily associated with the Electric Universe movement ([23] and [24]; the essay WP:INDEPENDENT has some points on why affiliated sources are problematic). None of these appear to be reliable sources to me. clpo13(talk) 22:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If I click on the scholar link and get nothing, then look at the sources and see no RS that actual discus the theroy I have to wonder.Slatersteven (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete shouldn't even require a discussion Lipsquid (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious POV fork with poor sourcing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete "all stars being powered by electric currents in space". oy. obvious FRINGE POV fork. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with other posters, this is not serving a useful purpose. Ultra fringe theory, terrible sources, this article has almost nothing going for it. --Krelnik (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:POVFORK, too poorly sourced to be integrated into the main article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Yeah, this is pretty clearly bizarre fake science crap. It's pretty fringe, even compared to most fringe theories. Also, it's a WP:POVFORK. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) Happy Holidays 16:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Obvious nonsense is nonsense. Roxy the dog. bark 18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pile on Delete per PROFRINGE and NPOV. As just about everyone has noted it's a POV content fork intended to promote a fringe pseudo-scientific theory. On a side note, I would encourage Hhowardroark to read the guidelines that other editors have linked in their comments before doing anymore editing on controversial topics like this. This is intended as the friendliest advice as I have no doubt that they are well intentioned. But well intentioned editors who are unable to abide by the community's guidelines and policies get blocked with depressing regularity. Please take a deep breath and step back for a bit while you get your bearings here. We need good editors, but we also need them to understand how we work. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on problems of establishing independent notability of the theory. I think it might be possible to maybe establish notability of Wal Thornhill, and it would certainly be possible to include information on his beliefs in an article on him, but not so far as I can see for a standalone article. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a fringe theory, which even if valid should be at Red Square Nebula. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK. The article is clearly unbalanced towards the given fringe/pseudoscientific theory. Joshualouie711 (talk) 14:11, 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 00:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maxcess International[edit]

Maxcess International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

evidence for existence, and nothing more. Utterly trivial awards. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per DGG: searches only yield very trivial mentions or press releases, nothing that could be construed as a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability. Appable (talk | contributions) 19:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the clear advertising we all know so well and WP:NOT applies like always, that's all we need for delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Veras Retail[edit]

Veras Retail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

zero evidence for notability . The references show existence and nothing more. Local business dailys are a place to publish PR, not news. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing remarkable about this subject that gives it the chance to be on this encyclopedia. A search online does not yield much either. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, a WP:BEFORE search reveals very little. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Mkdwtalk 08:07, 28 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 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dipendra Singh Airee[edit]

Dipendra Singh Airee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCRIC as the subject has not played in a first-class, List A or T20 match. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 18:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly doesn't meet WP:NCRIC. Recreate if and when he does. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:34, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyanamukaaka[edit]

Kyanamukaaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't make the case that this sub-county is notable in its own right. We already have an article on Masaka. The existence of primary schools does not establish notability. This doesn't even say that the place is in Uganda. If it were to be kept, it would need to be blown up and started over. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, obviously, per WP:GEOLAND, and if it doesn't say what country it's in would it be so difficult for the nominator to add that to the article rather than whinge about it? This is supposed to be a collaborative project. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article doesn't say that it is a legally recognized place. Legally recognized places are ipso facto notable, but it doesn't even say that. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much more important than whether the article says whether this is a legally recognised place, such as a municipality or subcounty, is whether reliable sources say so. Our coverage of Uganda and other African countries is abysmal, and it won't improve if people keep nominating articles about such obviously notable subjects for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, despite the available sources being more important than the article content, this does say that this is a sub-county, which is a legally recognised place. I try not to take notice of the identity of deletion nominators, since the strength of argument is much more important that the identity of the person making that argument, but I couldn't help noticing that you seem to make a habit of calling for deletion of articles about subjects that are not related to the Anglophone West. We have enough problem with systemic bias here without editors going out of their way to exacerbate it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Call to delete based on wp:TNT reveals that the nomination is simply wp:DISRUPTIVE. --doncram 20:23, 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 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Learning from failure[edit]

Learning from failure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article creator contested PROD. This is a pure WP:OR essay that fails WP:NOTESSAY. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSELFHELP, which should open two tabs, one with WP:NOTESSAY and the other with WP:NOTHOWTO. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 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. as obvious advertising/promotion. — foxj 16:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oonfun[edit]

Oonfun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Fails WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 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. Routine class-action case, plus WP:COI issues, as the creator of the article in the plaintiff in the case. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I didn't immediately realize that this had been moved to Educational Service Workers before the AfD was complete. I've gone ahead and deleted that page as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case no. 16CV300[edit]

Case no. 16CV300 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Court case that has petititoned for review at a higher court - which is yet to say if it will accept it. No indication of wide significance. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. noq (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Noq, thank you for allowing the opportunity to present the significance of these issues. This class action is very important to a large number of unemployed people in Georgia. Here in Georgia, if GDOL suspects you are connected to education in any way, you are automatically denied UI! When GDOL did this in 2012 with a rule change, he was forced to pay back $8M to more than 30,000 people! That's a lot of money! And a lot of people! But in 2015 the law was changed to do the same thing. Other states are looking on at the precedent and this issue has nationwide significance! If Georgia gets away with the unconstitutional denial of UI, other states will try the same thing. I have done a LOT of research and I have included references on my page which everyone can use to inform themselves and understand the situation. Many people say it's too complicated for them to understand, so just ask me if you have any more questions. Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebekahalnablack (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would also like to point out other similar articles such as the one on Trump University (sued because the students got neither Trump nor a University). I come to wikipedia all the time to research court cases. One reason Wikipedia enjoys it's popularity is because it contains so much great information! My goal is not to undo that by diluting your great product! I want to add an article of value and I believe I have done so according to WP guidelines. In terms of WP:NOTNEWS, I have to disagree that this would NOT better qualify as news. It is an encyclopedic article examining an issue of great importance to over 30,000 people in Georgia. A lot of money is involved, especially if other states adopt these laws. What do you think? Is it significant to you? signed rebekah black — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebekahalnablack (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out the multiple valid sources that find this topic significant: The Patch (Athens, GA newspaper), ReadingRoom.law.gsu.edu, workforcesecurity.doleta.gov, senatepress.net. I could add more references if you would like? I'd like to mention that Congress Rep. John Lewis letter to Butler is part of the evidence. Further, I want to clear up the fact that the court HAS accepted the case. It is filed and pending a decision. Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Noq. In light of the validated many 3rd party sources finding this case significant, could you please remove the nomination for deletion or let me know how I could further add value to this article. Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The sources given, are to peachcourt.comm that requires a login to read - I cannot comment on what is hidden behind the login, the 3 references to an a server without a name is not a WP:reliable source - I cannot associate it with anyone that could be reliable, the other references predate the legislation that this case is about - so cannot be used to establish this case as notable. Most court cases are known by the the names of the litigants involved rather than a court assigned number which makes searching for coverage hard to do - you might want to put that in the article as it would help anyone reviewing this try to find significant coverage in reliable sources. noq (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shawn in Montreal! Welcome to the world of law in Georgia! :)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I took out the 'server without a name".. gone. Also, the peachcourt.com has a free and easy login. Please register for a login as that is the way to access cases through court.

Looking at the site, it seems that peachcourt just lists all cases - it does not help to establish notability, merely existence. Therefore, you have no relevant sources at all. noq (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's existance is relevant. but i will provide more references tomorrow. Rebekahalnablack

In terms of references that "pre-date" these issues, I beg you to reconsider. These issues are the same, first it was the rules now it is the legislation. This is all part of the same elephant, I have to show you the legs and the tail and the face to show the whole picture. Also I can add current references! Please just give me till tomorrow! Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Totally run-of-the-mill civil court case. Not in a precedent-setting court, no judicial decision rendered. Cases like this are a dime a dozen, and there's no reason to think this one is any more notable than any other. agtx 22:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HI Agtx, thanks for your comment. Unfortuneatley, many people give up on the 3rd appeal. The courthouse handling this case stated they only get 1 if that kind of case like this per year. Please understand it is precedent -setting in that the many other states are looking on to see if they can get away with this too. User talk:Rebekahalnablack
Alright, maybe this article belongs under Wikileaks lol. Finding tons of reliable 3rd party sources before the scandal breaks is a lot more challenging than writing it up after the fact. Maybe this article is premature and I leave it to your decision. User talk:Rebekahalnablack Thank you! —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
unless you were denied ui due to being a ESW and didn't know why! this website explains why if you understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebekahalnablack (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A previous case involved 30,000 people - I don't see anything here showing this case involves that many. I don't even see who the primary litigants are. noq (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just registered on the PeachCourt site so I can look at some of the details. It appears that the plaintiff is the creator of the article and there does not appear to be any press coverage - very strange for a large class action case. 16:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi yes, I am the creator and plaintiff. There was no coverage of Trump University class action until Trump settled for $25M. Every class action has to start somewhere. There is plenty of press coverage from the last 3 years because this issue has been brewing since then. Please click on some of the links in the article to see press coverages since 2012. By the way, I have shared this wikipedia article with the lawyers for the opposing side, their contacts found under PeachCourt. It doesn't appear the opposing side wishes to participate in the wiki... unless u guys are them! ;) Rebekahalnablack (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have already seen the references to previous cases, and I dismissed them as not relevant to the notability of THIS particular case. Wikipedia is NOT a place for you to pursue your case and requires WP:significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. Case listings are not significant coverage - where is the coverage of THIS case? I did ask previously for you to state the litigants involved but you did not do so - hiding your WP:conflict of interest until it was pointed out. Please do not use Wikipedia as a WP:soapbox. noq (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I do apologize for the misunderstanding. I never attempted to hide anything. I use my full real name Rebekah Alna Black. Who are you Noq? Are you a lawyer specializing in UI in Georgia, USA? Please don't hide behind a fake name and condemn an issue you don't understand. Anyone is welcome to contribute to this article. I have asked lawyers from the opposing side, and you are welcome to contact them, too. Their contact is under peachcourt. I repeat that the news sources are relevant to this case. This issue has been a brewing here in Georgia and is very relevant to those denied UI. I am beginning to suspect you are a lawyer from the other side hiding under a fake name. Please tell us who you are. Rebekahalnablack (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have still not provided any reliable sources to THIS case - the references from before the legislation that this case is about cannot be used to establish this case as notable. And a brief look at my edit history should be enough to show that I am not part of the defence in this case - indeed I cannot think why they would bother with this article as it will not have any bearing on the court case. You may be using your real name but this has never been mentioned in the article as being YOUR case. Please read up WP:notability, WP:significant coverage and WP:reliable sources as well as the WP:COI article that you have already been pointed at. Wikipedia is not meant as a means of publicising your case - use the local media in Georgia for that. You have repeatedly claimed that the sources exist but you seem very reticent to actually provide any. noq (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good points. Thanks for pointing me towards those links and I think I understand your position. However, I still stand behind the fact that those resources refer to this case as in what is going on for UI in Georgia. My intent is to provide information on the UI situation in Georgia for educational service workers that may come to wikipedia to understand why they were denied. It is not to make money lol or win the case which could take years or advertise news. If you feel it would be more appropriate to wait until someone else writes the wp article in 5 years, I understand and support that decision. However, please consider writing an article to explain to the thousands of affected Georgians why you pulled the content down. Will this discussion at least remain for them to navigate by? The content I have posted is neutral and can be verified, but please do as you will, and I support WP best practices! Rebekahalnablack (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing :p I just wanted to clarify the "cases" are the same in that the people involved are the same, the memos sent are the same, the rules and laws involved are the same, the people places and things are all the same! Are you saying this should Just be an article about the 2012-2013 incident? Because I like your points and maybe this should be an article on the past instead of the present? Please let me know if these changes sound good, we could call the article Educational Service Workers or something? Rebekahalnablack (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ya!!! This is looking much better! Hi five noq! We make a great team.. thanks so much for the help. Rebekahalnablack (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And still you miss the point. Your rename and edit of the article looks to have changed it into a WP:COAT. You start with an obvious dictionary definition and then spend the rest of the article discussing the history of a dispute. noq (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, it is not a dictionary definition, it is a legal definition, as defined under Georgia law. And the law has history to it! In this article, what is the coat and what is the hook? What is the rack? Rebekahalnablack (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not indicate how this court case is notable per WP:GNG, that is, which reliable sources such as national news organizations have given it substantial (not only passing) coverage.  Sandstein  18:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What we really need is a series on this law. Educational Service Contractors being the next article.. Rebekahalnablack (talk) 20:06, 29 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) 10:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Dale[edit]

Jason Dale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability in sources that meet WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE. Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY as MVP of lower-level All-Star Game does not meet #4 (he is not a First Team All-Star in any season, he just played in an All-Star Game and happened to play well in that game). Yosemiter (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: hockeydb.com is a reliable source for statistics, but not one that supports a subject's notability. Ravenswing 17:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Another of the several hundred dubious articles created by the infamous Dolovis, for which he received a community ban from new article creation, and which has caused hundreds of hours of work for dozens of editors in cleaning up the mess. A hallmark of Dolovis' oeuvre is to conflate a superficially noteworthy "honor" into something meeting notability standards, and that's the case here, where a MVP citation in a single low-minor league game is the only claim to fame this journeyman minor leaguer had. It wasn't enough to gain notice sufficient to meet the GNG, and neither was the rest of the subject's career. Fails every iteration of NHOCKEY, then and now. Ravenswing 17:08, 27 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) 10:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erick E[edit]

Erick E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, one chart entry is a collaboration, the second is unverified. Fails the WP:MUSIC criteria on sourcing. Karst (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I am unable for find reliable independent sources that establish notability. (However, I recognize that there may be non-English sources out there that I wouldn't be able to identify.) Slideshow Bob (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GetBadges[edit]

GetBadges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no independent, reliable, secondary sources on the web to establish notability, as the WP:GNG advises. All the results are just the company's own promotional material. There are definifly no multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, so it fails the WP:WEBCRIT. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The only source provided by the author is a cursory mention of the product. RA0808 talkcontribs 15:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 15:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 15:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In fact I considered speedily deleting it. No evidence whatever of notability, and the article also looks rather like an attempt to promote its subject. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:PROMO and it definitely doesn't pass basic notability. Reads more like an idea than an encyclopedia page and there is little identifying what it actually is. Also can we add Getbadges to this as well since its a redirect to this page or will that go away upon deletion? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete I found...a lot of times people forgot to put a space between the words "get" and "badges", but nothing really. May just been too soon, since the company is only a year old, but if there is going to be a time, it's certainly not now. TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 27 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. Not substantially contested. Can be userfied, though not by me.  Sandstein  18:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scholastica Nigeria[edit]

Scholastica Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic fails our notability policy on the basis that reliable independent sources could not be found aside education-related blogs —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I think it is rather appropriate that we do our best to develop an article than speedily nominating it for deletion(AfD). Clearly Scholastica Nigeria is notable as covered on search engine and would only need more references. And the educational blogs that was referred to are know to produce clear, consice and accurate educational information.
‎Mahveotm, kindly familiarize yourself with the WP:GNG essay. A subject is said to be notable when it is covered by multiple independent reliable sources, not search engines. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Oluwa2Chainz Thanks for the link I've re-read it to be sure the was nothing I missed the first time I did, and obviously Scholastica Nigeria scales the Notability requirement. As earlier stated this article just needs additional references which I might not be able to provide due to my busy schedules. You said "A subject is said to be notable when it is covered by multiple independent reliable sources, not search engines" but what makes up search engines results if not sometimes the INDEPENDENT RELIABLE SOURCES. Have a nice time editing!!!!Mahveotm (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userify to give user:Mahveotm a chance to find actual sources. Mahveotm, please see further note left on your talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:58, 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. Claims that the subject satisfies the GNG don't seem to be satisfactorily supported. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sherine Wells[edit]

Sherine Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, holding a national record doesn't pass WP:NTRACK, and without that, this athlete doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Was de-prodded without explanation. Onel5969 TT me 03:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 01:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 01:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's clear to see she passes WP:GNG which overides WP:NTRACK. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, to be honest I thought I recognised the name, but unfortunately can't find evidence of Wells competing at the highest international level. He national record is as part of a relay team, so doesn't meet WP:NTRACK. The news coverage cited above is merely reports of competition results, there is no evidence of signifant attention to Wells as an individual, therefore she certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG either. Sionk (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not sure how above editors are coming up with passing GNG - current sourcing does not show that, and the 3 sources listed above, one is a nice article (The Star piece), the other is a press release, and the third is a brief mention. This could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 TT me 12:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted by the last AfD in G4 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommie Grabiec[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tommie Grabiec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR. I find no independent sources giving him substantial coverage, any more than at the time of the previous deletion discussion about an article about him. Largoplazo (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:36, 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) 10:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5Wkids Outdoor Learning Area[edit]

5Wkids Outdoor Learning Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost a G11. Definitely not notable for more than a footnote within Augusta International Raceway South Nashua (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Was looking at this article ealier, agree it is not notable. Was going to research it more later on, when I had the chance to confirm my thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbmarshall Obama(talk • contribs) 13:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already in the main article on the raceway, which was, until 30 second ago, itself completely unsourced. But nothing worth mentioning that I found on the learning area. TimothyJosephWood 20:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - found evidence of existence [28] but nothing that speaks to notability. PhilKnight (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know a bit about related programs from reading this article but absolutely nothing about the program itself. Postcard Cathy (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Nielsen[edit]

Johan Nielsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Meets WP:NHOCKEY #1 by having played in the Swedish Hockey League, a top-tier league. It was a post-season game rather than a regular season game, but that is a game that counts (actually more than a regular season game). If he had only played a preseason game I would say that doesn't meet NHOCKEY because that is not a game that counts, but playing a postseason game should meet NHOCKEY. 20:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral: Actually, Rlendog, you're not quite right. Nielsen didn't play a playoff game as North Americans would know it. The one game eliteprospects.com cites him as playing was in the annual relegation tournament, where the bottom two teams play the top four teams from the Allsvenskan to see which teams go up and which go down. (The Allsvenskan plays a similarly named round with teams from the Hockeyettan, the third-tier league, in which Nielsen similarly seems to have played.) This is an unusual case pertaining to Euroleagues alone, and probably worth discussing if not here. I'd honestly be more comfortable if I saw evidence Nielsen genuinely met the GNG, which given that the vast majority of his career involved J20 and third-tier teams is likely dubious. Ravenswing 08:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I did not realize that the postseason game he played in was a relegation game rather than a playoff game. Nonetheless, an SEL team saw fit to use him in a game that counted - arguably more than even a typical regular season game since relegation is pretty significant as I understand it. I would think that someone who was used in such an SEL game would have received some attention. Unfortunately all the Google News hits I get for him are from 2011 and later, which I think is nonconclusive as to his coverage prior to that since there certainly would have been at least a game summary of the relegation game he played in and even such a hit did not show up. My inclination is stil to give him the benefit of the doubt but I see your point. 15:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination. 96.232.177.125 (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any comment about the fact that he has played a meaningful game in a league that meets WP:NHOCKEY/LA? Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you should sign all your posts. It's confusing otherwise. 96.232.177.125 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for Nielsen, this is an enormous reach. He played in ONE relegation game in 2009 for a red-linked team in the third tier of Swedish hockey, as far as I can tell. This article should never have been created in the first place, but Dolovis is here to disrupt the site by causing people to have to bring all his garbage to AfD and RfD. 96.232.177.125 (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless GNG can be demonstrated. I find it doubtful that he played in a meaningful game. Unless he only played a partial game, he gave up 4 goals. The only games that would remain possible are the final two relegation games, both of which were irrelevent as his team had already secured their place in the top level. I believe his appearance to be marginally more than a preseason game, but I acknowledge that that is my belief.18abruce (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: Given that only one editor's advocated keeping the article, I question why this was relisted a second time. That being said, no one's demonstrated evidence that the subject meets the GNG in a month. Under the circumstances, given that his only claim to fame is a single appearance in a game that there's no consensus represents top-flight action, there aren't enough grounds to keep. Ravenswing 17:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing to indicate he passes WP:NHOCKEY, and not enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:26, 30 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) 10:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Marick[edit]

Brian Marick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no sources given to show independent WP:BIO notability (though does show bibliography with mainstream publishers); just one of the (17?) authors of "The Manifesto for Agile Software Development" Closeapple (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable software developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears that Brian's notability is due to the number of books/publications written but if so, the article still fails WP:AUTHOR. -- HighKing++ 15:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added several web and book references to help establish that the subject of the article has made a significant contribution to his field of work. Faught (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he is accomplished, but I don't if I'd say he had made a significant contribution. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For additional comments on added sources. Sam Walton (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see no sources that are secondary and relaible that are actually about him. Therefore, I will reccomend a delete, as per WP:GNG. The lack of secondary sources is further evidence to delete, as per WP:BASIC - Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:06, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bangladeshi comedians[edit]

List of Bangladeshi comedians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has spent most of its history containing entries almost all of which were not Bangladeshi, or not comedians, or not notable, and in some cases all three. Now that these spurious entries have been removed, it is a pointless list with just one entry. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Category:Bangladeshi comedians includes two articles at present. That would seem to fall below the threshold of making a useful list, unless more can be identified and supported as notable that should have articles. postdlf (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does anyone really doubt that there are more than two notable Bangladeshi comedians, from a country with several times the population of my own country, the UK? We need to apply a bit of common sense to our policies. The article should be allowed to grow rather than be deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the article has existed for over four years, and nobody has added a second comedian. If anyone can find articles on some more comedians that are notable and add them to the list, I will happily withdraw the nomination, but I don't see it as helpful to keep an article because theoretically it could be made into something useful when in fact nothing of the sort happens: that's like saying that an article should be kept because there must surely be sources somewhere, even though nobody has managed to find any. (See WP:MUSTBESOURCES.) If this were an article created three days ago, then waiting for editors to have time to more content would make sense, but they have had four years to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few more entries to the list with sources confirming that they are or were Bangladeshi comedians, and I've only skimmed the surface of the available sources in English. I really think that such nominations of articles that are so obviously about notable topics are disruptive to the building of an encyclopedia about the whole world, not just the Anglophone West. And please remember that there is no deadline here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too few names to make a list. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a catagory mentioned above on this subject but they seem to be all actors? Is there a clear difference between actors and comedians which means that this list cannot be expanded? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since more names have now been added I think it is a pass. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a few more entries. I really have to wonder whether it would have crossed the nominator's mind to even consider nominating, say, List of Canadian comedians for deletion. The only differences are that Bangladesh is a far more populous country than Canada but our coverage of it is abysmal. Deleting any of the few articles that we do have about Bangladeshi popular culture, and which basic common sense tells us must be notable, only exacerbates that already extreme systemic bias. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list has been populated and the topic is notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:33, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiwek[edit]

Wiwek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any secondary sources to support notability. One song, "Afrobot", appears to have charted on a Dutch "bubbling under" chart, see [29]. Most of the artists listed in the "remixes" section don't even mention Wiwek. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As per WP:ATD, the article should be improved rather than be deleted. By searching for this topic, I have found many reliable sources to establish notability. As per WP:MUSICBIO, one charted single is all it takes to pass the criteria. WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO can be resolved with a bit of expansion of the article. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:MUSICBIO specifically states: "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Magnolia677 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If these are the best sources you can find to support keeping this article, I would suggest these sources in fact do more to support the article's deletion. WP:BASIC specifically calls for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". Regarding the three sources listed:
  • The first source is seven sentences of vacuous text about upcoming singles with almost no biographical content.
  • The second source contains about six sentences of biography, followed by a lengthy interview with Wiwek. Interviews are not secondary sources.
  • The third source contains four sentences of promotional text about forthcoming singles, with absolutely no biographical content. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no stipulation in WP:GNG that all coverage must be "biography", it just states "significant." The coverage can be about the person's work, personal life or whatever else. As long as it's more than a "passing mention" of the person, it's acceptable per WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:30, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martha deMey Clow[edit]

Martha deMey Clow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is clearly a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, but the subject fails WP:N for both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. She appears to have only authored one (non-notable) work. Sources provide only trivial coverage. AlexEng(TALK) 08:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part of a series I'm working on (the somewhat-more-notable Marcia J. Bennett was the first) to document lesser-known women writers of sci-fi and fantasy from the 1970s and '80s. My guideline was Wikipedia:Notability_people: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." My additional hope in creating articles like this one is to increase WP's coverage of a genre that has been historically antagonistic toward the participation of women. I understand that this doesn't change the notability of these writers in an absolute sense, but I think that holding a strict line on notability in such cases can have the effect of extending the biases that hampered the development of these artists in the first place. Including such articles will also be of help to anyone interested in researching this period. I throw myself on the mercy of the court! :) Thank you for the opportunity to discuss. --Stevenarntson (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply! I have no doubt that your intentions are good, and as both a fan of Scifi literature and a proponent of women authors, I sympathize with the need to shine a light on this topic. Unfortunately, in this particular case, I don't think the subject is notable enough for inclusion. AlexEng(TALK) 23:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AlexEng(TALK) 08:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. AlexEng(TALK) 08:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is the place to recognize notability, not try to create it. A single novel that received a lukewarm review doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:AUTHOR holds the bar ridiculously high. 100s of writers covered by WP articles wouldn't pass it. As for WP:GNG, this author had a novel published by Ballantine Books, a major publisher, and it was independently reviewed in an important journal. Sounds notable enough to me. lNeverCry 23:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting we keep the author article or a hypothetical article about the book she published? Authors do not inherit notability from their publishers. "Luna Monthly" is not an "important journal," and even if it were, it would need to cover the author herself, not her work. deMey Clow is listed (read: trivially covered) in a self-described "author index." None of this qualifies as significant coverage under GNG. AlexEng(TALK) 23:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just in the interest of clarity, I tried to find two reputable sources to describe Clow, which are Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature Vol II (print) and The Science Fiction Encyclopedia. For a review of the work, I used Luna Monthly, which was reasonably legit in its day, though not hugely important. The "Index" you mention isn't one of my sources--just an external link I thought people might find useful. Thanks! --Stevenarntson (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature Vol II" is what I referred to as the author's index. It's a 1,142 page list of hundreds of authors with a short blurb about each of them. That qualifies as trivial coverage. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has written in a significant degree about this author, other than to acknowledge her existence and her profession. I don't think that qualifies as notable. AlexEng(TALK) 18:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I misunderstood you there. Thanks for clarifying. --Stevenarntson (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, on the basis that finding several examples of news/book coverage of an author whose only book was published in 1970, is quite a feat, suggesting there may well be more, contemporaneous, offline coverage. The big disappointment is that her passing in 2010 seems to have gone unnoticed. Sionk (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:BASIC to start. Article could use improvement, not deletion per WP:ATD. Read Women in speculative fiction for context. Thank you Stevenarntson for your work on these articles.Hmlarson (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, since you linked WP:BASIC: what are the multiple sources in which the subject has had significant coverage? AlexEng(TALK) 20:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources indicate coverage in independent reliable sources. Author published by respected, major genre publisher. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 27 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 17:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Cooper Hakim[edit]

Amy Cooper Hakim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As usual with public speakers and authors there are quite a lot of references, but most of them look PR and promotional works. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not convincing for WP:AUTHOR or anything close to it for that matter, and also quite noticeably hints at advertising, WP:NOT applies in that alone. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 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 03:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be specific on how it fails WP:GNG despite "Significant coverage" in independent reliable sources and how the cite sources do not provide no indication of notability? There are many sources on her on Google News such as these[33], [34], [35] etc. which can be included in the article and expanded. Paveroc (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of these references provide significant coverage about the subject. Notability cannot be inherited. The references seem to mention her book but that it is. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ostroy[edit]

Andy Ostroy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the notability of his wife and especially her death is well-established, the article subject may not be. Notability is not inherited, and the only cites to WP:RS for Ostroy are articles he wrote to contradict political use of his wife's death, which is well-covered on her page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is too heavily reliant on primary sources. We have evidence that he wrote articles critical of Donald Trump. However the evidence is the articles themselves, thus primary sources, thus a lack of secondary sources to show that Ostroy is in any way notable or that people actually paid attention to his writing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per above...106.208.183.2 (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)indicarider[reply]
  • Wrong forum  Given that the topic is covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia, WP:DEL8 is not a deletion argument.  AfD has a backlog without taking on content issues.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:59, 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. Article can be restored to draftspace if more reliable, secondary sourcing is unearthed. czar 04:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McCavish[edit]

Michael McCavish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable aikido instructor. None of the sources given indicate the notability required in WP:BIO, and I couldn't find any better ones. Fram (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in most reliable sources and the page's current references. I was also unable to find additional sources for verification and notability. Meatsgains (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I saw this article recently created and fixed it up a bit. I think we should give it a bit of a chance to grow as in the Shodokan world he is very notable. I would hope his World Championship Gold result (Virginia 2000 among others) and teaching (British National team) background would help but we definitely need to find better references.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the Shodokan Aikido world championships are held in odd-numbered years and have never been held in Virginia. Is my info incorrect? If you have independent coverage showing he was a world champion, it would help his case for notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both Papaursa and Peter Rehse are correct.Usually world championships are held in odd-numbered years however the JAA U.S.A held a tournament in Virginia which was held in 2000. It was billed as The Friendship Games and contstants from around the world took part. The members of the Shodokan community thought of it as a World Championships but it was not billed as such. However the competitors did include the then current world champion from the U.S Manny Vargas as well as the then current Japanese champion Kinoshita. Mccavish won the Gold medal in the randori ( fighting style) and then also won the Gold medal in the Freestyle kata. I found reference to him also winning a team gold medal at the Leeds World Championships in 2003. The internet is also littered with references to medalists thanking Mccavish for his instruction. Within the Shodokan community it is clear that he is a senior figure. He teaches aikido for free and does so in a variety of languages; according to one source he speaks 7 languages.I agree with Peter Rhese that we should allow this article to continue for a while. I believe he is also one of the coaches called upon to teach the British National Squad.If anyone has any more information about this I think that would also be of use.777Metatron777 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since it wasn't an actual world championship event it doesn't carry the same weight. I also don't know how American Manny Vargas could have been the reigning world champion for this event in 2000 when it's claimed the first non-Japanese world champion was in 2003[36]. It does appear he was part of the Japanese team that won a team event in 2003, but being a team champion in an individual sport is less impressive to me--especially when it appears all competitors were from either the BAA or JAA. The article doesn't show any significant independent coverage of him and my own search didn't find any. I'm withholding my vote for now, in the hopes that additional coverage can be shown. Papaursa (talk) 03:41, 21 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) 18:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This appears to be one of those cases where what I call "real world notability" conflicts with WP notability. Some aikido practitioners I know think well of him, but no one has been able to produce any significant independent coverage of him. His name doesn't appear in the Aikido Journal or any other MA publications I can find. He does appear to have been on a world championship winning team, but even that is diminished by the fact that it was for a relatively new version of aikido (and even that split into two factions) and the event was for only one of those. Plus those "world" championships seem to be have been contested by only two teams. If the martial arts weren't so fragmented with so many "world champions", it would be easy to say WP:NSPORTS is met. Meanwhile, the lack of coverage means WP:GNG is not met. I think this is a close call. Papaursa (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 01:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft instead for now as a solution given the fact not only is the last Keep above from SPA, since it's found he's not independently notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 27 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 move to draftspace. czar 04:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E. J. Gold[edit]

E. J. Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet WP:BIO Wcdillon (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has various problems but Gold is an established and notable writer in his field. Ontologicos (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepDelete Comment - Based on searches, I am seeing that he writes a lot, but I'm not seeing much written about him, except in some books. It's really hard to see what we're supposed to evaluate though - it seems like every interest he's ever had - he's known for - and at least in one case one of his books is make to look like it was just by his co-author. I'm going to do a little tidying up to see what's really here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that most of the article was original research or based upon primary sources. I could dig up some more information, but not enough to establish notability. He may have published a lot - but it isn't written about much by other authors. If it is kept, this is a biography that may be useful.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about this one a lot. I think I got such a negative taste in my mouth because of the way the article was written. There was use of primary sources made to look like secondary sources, saying he's known for about everything under the sun, and reminded me of a very similar autobiographical page. There was also a lot of uncited content. It all looked like a giant masquerade at this verion. However, the more that I think about it - there are books that mention him - and I mentioned a biographical article above. I am not interested in working on the article, but if someone was, it's possible that this could be built into a better article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 01:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 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 no consensus. Pretty straight forward no consensus close here. There has been barely any participation in this debate after three re-lists. (non-admin closure) st170etalk 00:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Divided We Fall (album)[edit]

Divided We Fall (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM. This article was previously deleted as an expired prod in October 2012 and was a redirect for a month until it was recently unredirected by 58.7.138.149. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 14:38, 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 05:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All available WP:RS appear to be passing mentions and/or bare listings. With one exception linked by user:Lugnuts, significant coverage limited to social media/blogs and lyrics, download, etc sites. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:53, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  18:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Marchese[edit]

Amber Marchese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about a reality television star. Clearly not notable, only known for appearing on one show for one season. All the sources about the person are either tabloids or articles about the series. Mymis (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete apparing in one reality television show is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Google returns many news articles on her (mostly in entertainment new sources like Entertainment Tonight Only, People Magazine). There is coverage of her dealing with breast cancer, being diagnosed with Lyme Disease, an incident where she and husband were kicked off an airplane, and a resulting lawsuit (covered also by Fox News [[41]], coverage of new reality show Marriage Boot Camp. This is far more than typical for "one show for one season". It sustained coverage for several years. MB 04:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Marriage Boot Camp generated almost no news coverage, just several articles on websites such as Radar Online and Us Weekly. And other articles from People, Fox News and several others do not actually provide any information that is suitable for Wikipedia, just some allegations that about alleged/rumoured infidelity. She has talked about some diseases that she has/had but again nothing that we can actually put in the article. She has no books released, no charitable foundations, no public speeches that would make her an advocate. Mymis (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has appeared on 2 shows and has received media attention, however in saying that the page needs work. Also she blogged her story of battling cancer for People at: http://people.com/tv/real-housewives-of-new-jersey-amber-marchese-blogs-about-obamacare/ where she also speaks of insurance and issues involving it, clearly playing an advocate. Kelege (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just because she wrote one blog entry about her disease, it does not really make her a notable advocate. She did appear on two reality series but for one season only. The Real Housewives would be quite notable for her (again, for one season only), while Marriage Boot Camp is not as it generated almost no news coverage. Mymis (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep She is covered in the News in RS over time for her participation in the shows, for her health issues and marital issues. It's not the kind of article I'm interested in cleaning up or adding to, however. Combing through the tabloids to get down to the RS is no fun. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I meant to comment sooner, the article itself shows she's simply best known for the show itself, hence it comes with only that specific attention hence we have nothing else to form a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Keep votes themselves either simply say "But she participated in something!" or actually then acknowledge there's nothing to base the actual needed notability, thus not showing this is confirmed to be notable with actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I have no interest in the subject, she has received consistent coverage in reliable and verifiable sources from around the world. Alansohn (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You must be more specific. "around the world"? "consistent coverage"? Mymis (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A search of Google and Google News shows sources distinctly about her -- not just related to her reality show appearances -- coming from reliable and verifiable sources on both sides of the Atlantic over a period of years. You in turn must be more specific about the BS "Clearly not notable" as an excuse for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was more specific in response to some of the comments above, please do read those. I did type her name into Google News, all I can see is articles on Radar Online, Us Weekly, and Daily Mail. She has not established herself outside Real Housewives where she was fired after only one season. She has talked about her diseases and stuff, but not enough to make her an advocate. Mymis (talk) 18:15, 27 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 17:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marios apostolakoulis[edit]

Marios apostolakoulis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable musician, sources offered are all blogs, PR sites, and profile pages (fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG) and an admittedly cursory search on Google does not seem to produce anything to support notability in either English or Greek Waggie (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:34, 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 01:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as literally trivial with not only any sheer efforts to format said links, but then nothing to actually emphasize the confirmed notability and, actually examining them, shows these to be trivial thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good place for WP:TNT. The plethora of sources do not appear to qualify as WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:21, 28 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. (non-admin closure) st170etalk 00:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Peterson[edit]

Matthew Peterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bio of an investor with no indication of notability. Current citations are either brief mentions of him (e.g. The Street) or by him (e.g. latticework.com). The Post Gazette is a nice piece, but it isn't as much about him, as about the lawsuit. Onel5969 TT me 16:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 09:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing and WP:NOT applies since it's enough here to suggest an encyclopedia was not conceived here, instead a PR piece. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 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 12:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The listed sources and sources available from searches are either WP:ROUTINE (e.g., the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article) or not WP:RS with one possibly significant exception: the claim to be "featured" in the book "100 Baggers: Stocks That Return 100-to-1 and How To Find Them". Without current access to that book, I cannot verify that this would be coverage that passes WP:GNG. Taking the claim at face value, however, would suggest that it does. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:51, 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 redirect to Shōnen manga. Consensus is that "shōnen" should redirect to shōnen manga but that its content should be split to a new page. However, that content is unsourced. Feel free to merge from the page history to a new article, but it will need reliable, secondary sources for verifiability. czar 04:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shōnen[edit]

Shōnen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a term (a Japanese word) and what it denotes, falling foul of WP:NOTDICT; it does not extend beyond trying to define the term, which is (barely?) used in English at all, and its subsidiary terms "The following meanings..." are surely quite unknown in English. An entirely inappropriate topic for English Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Strong keep It's use as a demographic is extremely common in discussion of Japanese media, even in English language RS that cover Japanese media. I make no comment on the article content but as a term it's quite important in coverage of aforementioned media. As an article target Wp:Anime amongst other are going to link to it heavily - any change would be problematic.I think this is article cleanup.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SephyTheThird (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. SephyTheThird (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shōnen manga. This is a dictionary entry, and looks inappropriate for an encyclopedia per WP:NOTDICT. As a target demographic, the term is very widely used, but almost exclusively in the context of manga and anime adapted from manga. The article shōnen manga is the one that discusses that target demographic, and almost all of the incoming links to shōnen actually should be going there instead. Calathan (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shōnen manga. @SephyTheThird: I think you are confusing the two, this appears to be a definition for boy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, based on Nihonjoe's comment below and my lack of knowledge on wiktionary I am moving to Weak Keep. The article needs improvement but AfD is not a place for cleanup. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have redirected Shōjo to Shōjo manga for the same reasons. The article's history is kept so any useful info can always be merged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as this article goes far beyond any mere dictionary definition. It includes various legal usages and explanations (and dictionaries don't include explanations). This is absolutely not just a WP:DICDEF. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a valid argument that the page isn't just a dictionary definition, but not a good argument for keeping the page as is. As far as I can tell, "shōnen" is just the Japanese equivalent of the words "boy" or "youth". The article talks about Japanese law pertaining to youths, and of course those laws will use the common Japanese word for a youth and will define the exact ages to which they apply, but that doesn't make the word "shōnen" a specialized concept rather than just the normal Japanese word for a boy or youth. The article is basically about the concept of Japanese youth law, but an article on that concept should be at a page named something like Japanese youth law, not a page named using the normal Japanese word for a boy. If some independent sources covering the subject on Japanese youth law can be found (the page as it stands would fail WP:N, with only one non-independent source), then I think it would be fine to keep the article, but again it should be under another name. However, regardless of whether the content in the current page is kept somewhere, I think our page shōnen should take the reader to the page on shōnen manga. The term "shōnen" is overwhelmingly using in English as a demographic of manga and anime (see for instance Google results at [42]]), and is also overwhelmingly used in that way on the English Wikipedia (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Shōnen). Calathan (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine moving the article to Japanese youth law or Japanese juvenile law, and then redirecting shōnen to shōnen manga. I'm sure various academic papers and such have been written on the topic of Japanese juvenile law. As for what you think, I already know that since you !voted to redirect. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that Japanese youth law or something similar would be a more appropriate title for the article than shōnen or having it become a redirect to shōnen manga, but as this article also contains information on the etymology (albeit an empty section) and the demographic usage of the term, then perhaps the title should be simply Japanese youth. –Matthew - (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Goes beyond dictionary definition to explain legal and demographic concept.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to shōnen manga. As a media demographic, the topic is covered there, and the Japanese youth law content belongs, as has been mentioned, in a separate article about that if one is ever written. What remeins is a dicdef.  Sandstein  16:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Japanese youth law and redirect this to shōnen manga per WP:COMMONNAME. It appears to me as though the vast majority of English-language references to this term are manga-related (Google News search makes this pretty obvious), so that's the common usage of the term in English. agtx 19:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Agtx. Shonen should go to shōnen manga as primary topic. Searching "Shonen" for the Japanese youth law is not a likely search for English Wikipedia but a dab could be created like Shonen (law). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' Based on consensus, I do not see this as a deletion discussion anymore. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 日本穣. As the article focuses on the legal context of the term in Japan, I do not consider it becoming a redirect as an appropriate solution.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 01:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as the above comments themselves show and concur this is not currently convincing as its own article and there's been no shown convincing signs. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 29 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 15:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Mills (rapper)[edit]

Reggie Mills (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rapper lacking non-trivial references. The references do not mention subject or are minor in nature. reddogsix (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Reggie Mills is an artist/ executive who revolutionized the independent music scene by curating tours then co-headlining those tours to reach commercial success. His work with independent record label, Amalgam Digital equipped him with the tools to develop himself as an artist while aligning himself with other nationally emerging artists.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotLazyAnymore (talk • contribs) 19:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Reggie Mills: The Next Independent Rapper Success Story". The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 21, 2016.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 04:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are credible sources to support the claim of notability. Needs improvement, but seems worth retention. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Orphan article...seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I think perhaps in the future Reggie Mills can have an article, but now is not the time for that. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Far too soon. Certainly the SXSW performances are promising, but with only 2 EPs that have not charted and only support slots it does not pass WP:MUSIC - move to draft space for when he has put out an album. Karst (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons listed above. To add to that, the HuffPo reference shown above is a "contributor" entry from someone listed as "publicist", so there is very good reason to believe it's just marketing copy rather than genuine third-party interest. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:26, 28 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) st170etalk 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decimus: The Abbey Road Sessions[edit]

Decimus: The Abbey Road Sessions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the criteria WP:NALBUM. Nothing found on a web search fails Wp:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to write article in response to Vanquish album. Eurohunter (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I'm sorry I don't understand to what you were responding exactly. --Domdeparis (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to mention isn't it same situation? Eurohunter (talk) 16:53, 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) 16:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the other page is even less notable as it was released only 3 days ago. I have tagged that one for deletion as well. An album that hasn't been in the charts can be considered notable but it has to fulfill one of the criteria in WP:NALBUM Domdeparis (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added American chart. Eurohunter (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Audiomachine. Charting in and of itself does not make an album notable. Without additional sourcing where the album is discussed in more detail, a redirect will suffice. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What make an album notable then? I think this chart is sufficient. Something under Billboard 200 should be enough. United States are a great country. Eurohunter (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The criteria for WP:NALBUM says that it may be notable but it also says Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography.Domdeparis (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NALBUM also says to meet notability requirements, a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Reaching #13 on a sub-chart, doesn't make an album automatically notable. Find the coverage. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:37, 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. Uncontested if one discounts the sockpuppetry, which according to the SPI case below is by a paid editing farm. Therefore also salting.  Sandstein  18:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Exos[edit]

Kai Exos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking at WP:MUSICBIO - he has one LP under his belt, some song placement (the 'most added' part of a national music chart, not the main chart itself), Gnews is giving me nothing on his recording career. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:40, 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 12:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is clearly a stub, but I believe the subject reaches notability. He fulfills many of the requirements mentioned in WP:MUSBIO, including: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself, Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart, among others. His performance at the Sundance Film Festival should also be taken into account when considering his notability in my opinion.Waffen77 (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Coverage in sources is non-existent to trivial, the longest article I could find was two paragraphs and that was a niche review of the album and not the artist. The "national chart" he's been on is not actually a national chart per WP:NMUSIC, it's a very niche chart, thus does not confer notability. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a tricky one, I agree that the charts where he appears are not acceptable according to WP:NMUSIC, however I do believe he has a good amount of independence coverage, small, but there is, and it may be enough to achieve notability. Besides that, his participation in the Sundance Film Festival (and the coverage about that), must also be considered when establishing his notability, this according to point 4 of WP:NMUSIC. Its a weak keep, but its a keep all the same.Screense (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, he has a good amount of independence converage to acchieve notability, and his apperances in the charts should be considered as part of the discussion as well.Discocheck (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please show which coverage you consider to constitute "good amount of independent coverage", because I'm not seeing it in the article, nor in the sources I could find. Charts should most definitely not be taken into account per WP:NMUSIC, unless they generate coverage (which they don't). No longer a penguin (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the Keep comments are from clear SPAs and it's clear none of this amounts to actual genuine substance, that's all we need for deletion, no need for others to suggest "But it's important!". SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Hold pending Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waffen77. Mkdwtalk 07:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Discocheck and Screense (and the creator of the article) are  Confirmed socks of Waffen77.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 28 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. If Arabic-language sources from Iraq can later be produced to show that this is a notable rivalry, this decision can be revisited. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shorta SC–Al-Zawraa SC rivalry[edit]

Al-Shorta SC–Al-Zawraa SC rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from these two teams playing against each other fairly often and both being from Baghdad, I can't see any basis for this article. Rivalries are not inherently notable; see WP:NRIVALRY. Articles should be more than just regurgitating statistics; see WP:NOTSTATS. Furthermore, the source provided is from webs.com and is an unreliable blog; see WP:GNG. Spiderone 12:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources:

Look at the third paragraph: "The crowds are amazing. It's a full house every time we play, and the biggest matches are the Shorta-Zawraa derbies.

"Is the competitiveness of the historic rivalry coming to an end?"

Translation: "Hassanin Mubarak urged me to travel the length and breadth of Iraq, including Baghdad where there are the four derby clubs of Iraq (Al-Shorta, Al-Quwa Al-Jawiya, Al-Talaba, Al-Zawraa), to see for myself how football was popular everywhere." Translation: "Given that the four derby teams of Baghdad (Al-Shorta, Al-Quwa Al-Jawiya, Al-Talaba, Al-Zawraa) are also the strongest four teams in the country, they were put in separate groups."

Translation: "Al-Shorta began their defence of their Premier League title with a victory over Al-Zawraa in the derby match that took place in Al-Shaab Stadium." By the way, in Iraq, all matches between the 4 derby teams are played at Al-Shaab Stadium (the Iraqi equivalent of Wembley Stadium) instead of being played at the club's respective home grounds, which is further proof that these articles are about the biggest rivalries in the country. Hashim-afc (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hashim-afc: I can't read Arabic but I'll assume good faith and trust your translations. If this does end up being kept, if you could put these in the article then it would be fantastic. I'll do so myself if I have the time. I don't think that the Twitter source is reliable, though. Spiderone 11:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really know exactly what I have to do to stop these articles being deleted to be honest, I have given sources that show it's a derby match, how exactly do I prove that it receives significant coverage then? I can tell you for a fact that all matches between Shorta, Jawiya, Zawraa, Talaba receive significant coverage in Iraq, the media don't stop talking about these matches whenever they come around. That's why broadcasting channels like Al-Kass Sports Channel who are from Qatar not even from Iraq buys the rights to show these games. So I don't exactly know how I can prove these matches have significant coverage. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no reason to doubt you. All I'll say is to try to bring forward more Arabic sources to back these facts up. I know it's not perfect but it's clear to see that Algiers Derby is notable from the article and a quick check of the sources included. Spiderone 19:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above discussion seems to demonstrate (I can't tell, as I don't read Arabic) that this rivalry is perhaps notable within Iraq as demonstrated within Arab-language sources. Is there any reason that ar:Al-Shorta SC–Al-Zawraa SC rivalry (or equivalent) would not be appropriate and likely more use to readers? I know that in the past the other-than-English Wiki projects have sometimes been thought of as second-class destinations but for articles that are more likely to be searched-for and read in those languages it is a fully cromulent destination. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:35, 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. There seems to be a consensus that the sources provided do not meet the standards of the WP:GNG, and that there are no other reasons to keep the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Sanderson[edit]

Jana Sanderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sanderson does not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. Her one claim to fame is winning Miss Alabama, and that is not a high enough honor to confer notability. The coverage bears this out. There is minimal coverage of that win. Beyond that we have coverage from the Gadsden Times, including things like her wedding annoucement. This is not the level of coverage that raises an article to notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's literally no independent notability given there's only 1 trivial pageant for a 1-time career achievement, nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The subject has actually received some significant coverage in news sources, but the sources are all local to Gadsden, Alabama, where the subject is from (e.g. [43], [44], [45]). North America1000 07:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Here are the citations from the article.  This is another well-engineered Dravecky article.
Unscintillating (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Meets both WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO#1 for notability.  The remedy for editors who believe that this topic fails our notability guideline is to merge the reliable material as a mini-bio to a suitable target article such as Miss Alabama.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a state-level pageant win hardly qualifies as WP:ANYBIO#1, as multiple past AfDs have abundantly demonstrated. The GNG is not met as the sources are local and coverage is routine, as in "local person gets award". Nothing else stands out about this contestant, and in such case, article on state winners are routinely deleted.
The article contains copy such as:
  • "Her family includes her mother Judy, an elementary school teacher, sisters Jill and Margie, and brothers Marcus and John.[2][11][14]"
This is a hallmark of a WP:PSEUDO BLP, and this article should be correspondingly deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean, "...correspondingly merged as per WP:PSEUDO".  The problem is that without editors here volunteering to do the merge, the editors with experience in this topic area are preferring standalone pages.  This is exactly one of the reasons that content disputes, such as this one, don't belong at AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While there is some local coverage, it clearly does not rise to the level of meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:40, 27 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. A number of comments focused on Schwartz's role as director of Obama's California campaign - some asserting this was notable, others asserting this was not notable. We don't appear to have a guideline on that particular role, and even when we do we rely on what reliable sources say. So a guideline saying such a role is notable would be indicating that there would likely be reliable sources discussing that role. And there are. These reliable sources have been found and detailed in the discussion. However, it has been pointed out that all relate to the same press release, and while we may use press releases judiciously for information, we tend not to rely on them for deciding notability. As indicated in the discussion, per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:BIO1E, notability has not been met. Arguments for notability are not as strong as though against, and those against match most closely our policies and guidelines. The article says "widely known for his work as the California State Director for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign", so - again per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:BIO1E - a suggestion may be to include him in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 , and to build on his mention in Los Angeles mayoral election, 2017. Those appear to be the articles where information on him would be most useful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Schwartz (public figure)[edit]

Mitchell Schwartz (public figure) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article is not notable. Running for office by itself does not qualify for notability. The references do not indicate significant third-party notability except related to the election, and a search for references does not find any more. On the contrary, this article says, "if you vote in Los Angeles elections, you have almost certainly never heard of" Schwartz.http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2016/01/democratic_operative_says.php He is not even that notable in this election, as this article describes "long shot Schwartz" by saying he "has as much chance of being your next mayor as I do of winning a Pulitzer Prize for Poetry."http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/more-election-fundraising-fun/article_dddc5746-925f-11e6-b755-9b25e6982ad6.html

This WP article reads like a campaign piece, stating Schwartz policies as fact and giving Schwartz' criticism of his main opponent as if it were fact. While these WP:NPOV problems could be fixed, it is not worth doing so given the lack of notability. The creator of this article, who also provided most of the edits and most of the content, worked in the Mitchell Schwartz for Mayor campaign and was responsible for the "grassroots social media outreach campaign" that appears to include creation of this page. This creates serious concerns about WP:COI if not WP:AUTO.

COI Notice: I am a Los Angeles political activist. Schwartz' main opponent is Garcetti. I have met Garcetti many times. There has been a past election in which I have supported Garcetti. There has been a past election in which I have opposed Garcetti. I have not decided who I will support in this election. While I was typing this message for the talk page, I got a call from Garcetti's office asking about the procedure for getting an endorsement from an organization I lead. I have not been in touch yet with the Schwartz campaign. RichardMathews (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Him being the California in charge of President Obama's presidential campaign should be taken into consideration. I think it fulfills WP:GNG...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above, passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Outside of press releases, the media does not seem to have found it noteworthy that Schwartz had the Obama campaign job. Before he ran for office, I can find just two independent references about what he did in that job[46][47]. If he truly is notable for this (and I don't think so), the bulk of the article should be about what he did in that job, provided any such material can be found without doing independent research. RichardMathews (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a state director of a US presidential campaign is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - being the director of the largest state campaign is probably notable. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being the director of the largest state campaign is probably not notable.--2600:8805:A001:C900:38D9:8760:3AF7:F734 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Schwartz' role in the Obama campaign and his connections and networking make him the only candidate in this race with any remote chance of winning it, even if it's a slim one. And even if/when Garcetti wins reelection, it'll be worth knowing what kind of opposition he ran against. Frankly I'm surprised this is even up for debate here. We're talking about one of the largest cities in the world and an ambitious, upwardly mobile incumbent. 23.240.213.65 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What makes you notable is recognition from third parties (WP:NRV), not a job you hold or a campaign you are in (WP:POLITICIAN). If being a candidate cannot by itself make you notable, how can being an employee of a candidate do so? The notability rules explicitly make the current campaign for mayor not a factor. If it were a factor, the facts are that his opponent has an order of magnitude more money and that news media have been clear in saying Schwartz is an unknown and a long shot. For the Obama campaign, he was director of the campaign in the largest state, not the director of the largest campaign of any state. The big campaigns are in the medium-sized swing states (as measured by Obama's 2007/2008 ad spending, the California campaign was the 15th largest[48] with the PA campaign being seven times larger). The fact that there was just one media interview with Schwartz while he had that job shows that it was not notable. I am still convinced that this should be deleted and will be until someone shows there is "objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources." RichardMathews (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By your logic, only Eric Garcetti would meet your notability requirements. He'll get a significant share of the vote. He'll get endorsements once local politicians are done reeling from the national election. But he's absolutely notable now, too, because he's worked within the party and has connections. Honestly, Wikipedia is dumb. You'll create 50+ pages of Game of Thrones bullshit but when the second largest city in America has a mayoral election, you bring in the demolition crew. 76.91.51.209 (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RichardMathews. Just because he was campaign director in the biggest state, does not mean he made a bigger impact on the election compared to other state campaign directors. The Democratic candidate has usually won California in recent elections. Obama's campaign spent more in New Hampshire and it's way "smaller" (population less than a million). A campaign director there would be closer to being notable. Anyways, the current sources are weak. Emily Goldstein (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Politicians are one of the only groups of biographies for whom notability standards are actually raised above GNG by a Special Notability Guideline. In short, we expect politicians to be actually elected to a high office, not to merely run for them, and consider ordinary campaign biographical and position articles in newspapers to fall under the umbrella of WP:NOTNEWS and to not count to GNG. We're trying to avoid self-serving campaign biographies by active politicians running for office. That's precisely what we have here. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the coverage of this person is routine and local, so I don't see that he'd meet the WP:GNG. He may possibly become more notable in the future, at which time this article can be recreated. Note that the "Keep" opinions above are limited to bare assertions of WP:ITSNOTABLE as well as crystal ball stuff. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Ambinder, Marc (2007-08-16). "A Key California Hire For Obama". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.

      The article notes:

      The person who directed the Comeback Kid's 1992 New Hampshire campaign, Mitchell Schwartz, has joined Sen. Barack Obama's team. Longtime Los Angeles Democratic operative Mitchell Schwartz has jumped on the Obama train. The founder of the Bombay Company public relations firm, which coordinated the online media campaign for former Vice President Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, Schwartz will serve as California State Director for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. ... Schwartz has worked on nearly every presidential campaign since 1984, and served in 1992 as Bill Clinton's New Hampshire state director. He also served on campaigns for Sen. Barbara Boxer, former Gov. Gray Davis and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villraigosa.

    2. Roderick, Kevin (2008-09-22). "Obama's California team becomes official". L.A. Observed. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.

      The article notes:

      Mitchell Schwartz, a veteran of Bill Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Gray Davis and Antonio Villaraigosa campaigns, is state director of the Barack Obama campaign. Schwartz is also president of the Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters.

      ...

      Mitchell Schwartz, a veteran strategist, has served on nearly every presidential campaign since 1984. As Bill Clinton's New Hampshire State Director in 1992, Schwartz played a key role in Clinton's "comeback kid" showing in that state's Democratic primary. Schwartz served in the Department of State's Office of Public Affairs under President Clinton in 1993-95. Currently President of the Bomaye Company, a public affairs firm in Los Angeles, Schwartz has served in the campaigns of Senator Barbara Boxer, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Governor Gray Davis and other elected officials. Schwartz is President of the Board of the Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters and is a board member of Temple Israel of Hollywood. He lives in Los Angeles with his wife and two children.

    3. Marelius, John (2007-08-17). "Obama California campaign". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.

      The article notes:

      Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is staffing up in California, naming veteran Democratic campaign strategist Mitchell Schwartz to be his state director.

      Schwartz has worked on the campaigns of U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, former Gov. Gray Davis and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. He was New Hampshire state director for Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign and then worked in the State Department's Office of Public Affairs from 1993 to 1995.

      He is founder and president of Bomaye Group, a Los Angeles public affair firm which, among other things, coordinated the grassroots and online campaign for Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth."

    4. "LA mayoral candidate Mitchell Schwartz issues 3-point plan to reform the DWP". Los Angeles Daily News. 2016-12-16. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.

      The article notes:

      Schwartz is a longtime political operative who ran then-Gov. Bill Clinton’s primary campaign in New Hampshire in 1992 and then-candidate Barack Obama’s California campaign in 2008. He also served as communications director at the U.S. State Department during Clinton’s first term and worked with the LADWP on the Green Power Programs from 1999-2003.

    5. Smith, Dakota (2016-01-29). "Former Obama strategist files fundraising papers for 2017 mayoral election". Los Angeles Daily News. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.

      The article notes:

      A political strategist for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign filed fundraising papers with the city of Los Angeles this week, the first step in a mayoral bid.

      Mitchell Schwartz, 55, said he will challenge Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti in next year’s election.

      The Windsor Square resident said he’s concerned about quality-of-life issues, and cited crime, traffic and eduction as his key campaign issues.

      Schwartz, 55, also criticized development, stating City Hall leaders are too beholden to developers.

    6. Jamison, Peter (2016-01-26). "Former Obama campaign official says he will challenge Eric Garcetti in 2017". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.

      The article notes:

      A longtime Democratic operative who played important roles in the first Obama presidential campaign and the Clinton White House said Tuesday that he plans to run against Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti in 2017.

      Mitchell Schwartz, 55, said he plans to take out papers for his campaign in the coming weeks. A political strategist who directed Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign in California and served as communications director for the State Department under President Clinton, Schwartz would be the first challenger with a significant political resume to enter the 2017 mayoral race.

      ...

      In 2009, Schwartz was involved in the unsuccessful campaign for L.A.’s Measure B, a ballot initiative that would have expanded the development of solar-energy panels in the city. Measure B was also backed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents most employees at the city’s Department of Water and Power.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mitchell Schwartz to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each of #1, #2, and #3 is a brief note that contains no information on Schwartz that was not included in just one Obama press release[49]. That press release is clearly not independent of Schwartz. So little thought was put into #1 that they didn't even correctly copy spelling from the press release (Bomaye versus Bombay)—at least it wasn't a copy/paste job. In #2, Schwartz is just one of a list of people covered. None of these three sources is substantial or independent. None shows ongoing interest in the job the Schwartz did. Fails WP:BASIC (especially note 5) and WP:BLP1E.
The same reporter who summarized the press release for #2 actually tells you how notable Schwartz is in a more recent article[50]. The headline is "Mitchell Schwartz (who?) says he'll run against Garcetti" (emphasis added). The second paragraph says, "you have almost certainly never heard of" Schwartz.
Each of #4, #5, and #6 is news about the current election campaign. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:POLITICIAN, and the fourth bullet of WP:POLOUTCOMES.
The comment that Currite made about politicians needing to overcome a higher standard under a special notability guideline is very important here. It is not good enough to be a candidate. It is not good enough to be an employee of a candidate. You actually have to do something that builds lasting interest beyond a campaign.
RichardMathews (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is time that I update my COI notice from when I originally posted this AfD over a month ago. As noted before, I lead some local political organizations interested in doing an endorsement in this race. Since then, one of these groups voted unanimously and without debate to endorse the incumbent and not Schwartz. I did not vote. I have not personally endorsed in this race, but it will eventually be my responsibility to promote the club's endorsement. For another organization, in about a month I will be helping conduct interviews of candidates in this race including Schwartz. I am not paid for this or any other political work. I am not associated with any current campaign. My political duties in no way affect my belief that Schwartz is not notable. I really don't know enough about Schwartz yet to have formed an opinion of him as a potential mayor. RichardMathews (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not seeing the type of in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources necessary to meet WP:GNG, and he definitely doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 20:08, 30 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 criterion 4 of WP:SKCRIT. (I see no need to delete this discussion, though, which it also allows for. The discussion thread may be valuable for others) (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Derakhshan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hossein Derakhshan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Article does not pass WP:GNG, nor it passes Politicians notability criteria. I also think it's WP:TOOSOON and WP:BIO1E look Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Derakhshan 111695 (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suspect this new single purpose account nominator to either be or be affiliated with this indef banned sock puppeteer from the Persian Wikipedia (you'll need Google translate to read it, too, perhaps) but was unable to get the closing admin there, who is also a Wikimedia steward, to comment one way or another. The purpose here, and at least one other Afd, appears to be to delete articles related to opponents of the Iranian regime. Shawn in Montreal (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet. Hang googles (talk) 05:11, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace bus station[edit]

Crystal Palace bus station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, unremarkable bus station. No real reason for inclusion within Wikipedia. Fails WP:NOTDIR in some respects.

Also nominating for same reason:

Peckham bus station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Snöggletög Nightfury Happy Christmas!! 10:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Snöggletög Nightfury Happy Christmas!! 10:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Snöggletög Nightfury Happy Christmas!! 10:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is fully sourced with information about the landmarks and places to visit nearby. I have included external links to where you can find more information. Please do not delete this article. There are so many other articles about bus stations on Wikipedia. Why do you want to delete my article? I have a reliable source called https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/AttractionsNear-g186338-d590940-Crystal_Palace_Park-London_England.html and http://www.visitlondon.com/discover-london/london-areas/places/crystal-palace#2huWHWHL2jm5AMB2.97 which gives information about the places which you can visit nearby. I also got information about the buses that you can take to get to Crystal Palace from https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/stop/490005869D/crystal-palace-bus-station?lineId=n137. This article has lots of sources to support it so this article should say in Wikipedia. Do not delete this article. Have a look at Stratford bus station and White City bus station. They have similar information to me. Does that mean that you delete this article? Look at these two articles. You can see that they are very much similar to my article. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles about bus stations in London. Why does this article have to be deleted? Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
White City bus station is Grade II listed, meaning it is somehow significant beyond being just some random bus station. DMacks (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found another source called http://www.visitlondon.com/traveller-information/place/9563745-crystal-palace-bus-station#2pAdpHbg2B8VU6Te.97. Please visit this source and check if it is reliable. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources for this article. I found a source called http://www.notrog.plus.com/busroutes/placesindex/crystalpalace.htm and it has information about the public transport at Crystal Palace bus station. Does this article really need to be deleted? Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIR, WP:GNG. Snöggletög Nightfury Happy Christmas!! 12:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Both non-notable bus stations. In fact they aren't even bus stations, just somewhere where bus routes terminate. WP:NOTINHERETED. Ajf773 (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Per nom, The creator has also been hauled to ANI over mass creation of articles that fail GNG, and has been blocked indefinitely as a result.. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 20:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NOT.Charles (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't there someplace worth merging and redirecting these to? bd2412 T 04:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. At a push maybe Crystal Palace, London and Peckham but nowhere that would have a say in what the articles are about. Snöggletög Nightfury Happy Christmas!! 07:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (Sufficient notability proven for me) (non-admin closure) Lbmarshall (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allin Institute[edit]

Allin Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Notability. After quick google searches, unable to find any informationof building, using current name or previous. Named after the son of someone who again, I have not found anything out using google. Lbmarshall (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. The scant listings don't pass GNG and the building isn't listed as any kind of monument or national landmark. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. Contrary to the statement above, it's a nationally listed heritage building.[51] -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp. Yes, it appears to be on the national register for Ireland. There's no Wikipedia article yet on that particular register but it is described on the site as "A service provided by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 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 Speedy Deleted per CSD A7 RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandvery[edit]

Brandvery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, zero mentions in secondary sources. This article has been speedily deleted under A7 previously. When it reappeared in an almost identical format I nominated it again but the CSD template was removed by a non-logged-in user. I would support a Speedy Deletion (A7) as WP:SNOW should apply. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. st170etalk 10:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (probably CSD A7) and salt: A WP:SPA article on a newly established firm/site (registered last month). There is no claim of notability and my searches (Highbeam, Google) are turning up no evidence of notability. I see no reason that IP removal of a CSD template - contrary to the instructed method to oppose CSD - should persist an article longer than necessary so am also reinstating the CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 11:26, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ingavin and Thunir[edit]

Ingavin and Thunir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a minor detail of a fantasy world. These gods are not even mentioned in the linked novel. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pretty much a case for a fan-wikia. 2 fictional gods in a fantasy novel (series). There is nothing which even indicates notability. I (unsurprisingly) couldn't find anything which would satisfy WP:GNG. Without any claim for notability and no RS to back it back I think the article should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Hauseman[edit]

Chad Hauseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NBASE. Could be merged into a list of Anaheim Angels minor league players, but he can't meet the notability criteria on his own at this point. South Nashua (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Easily fails WP:NBASE and WP:GNG. Merging to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim minor league players would not be appropriate, as that is only for active minor league players. Hauseman hasn't played since 2003.--Penale52 (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG and merge would not be appropriate. Lepricavark (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as I said in my prod: "Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NBASE." Onel5969 TT me 23:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations to the subject for being lucky enough to live in the prestigious unincorporated seaside community Ponte Vedra Beach, but delete. Basically zero news coverage, and even routine coverage of stats like this indicate he only actually played for a single year. If he is destined for a Wikipedia article, it seems it will be for something other than baseball. TimothyJosephWood 13:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet the notability of minor league players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Divo (musician)[edit]

Divo (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources in the article are third party and independent. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Review for The Evolution Theory in Exclaim!. Reviews for This Iz Bizness in Exclaim! and RapReviews.com. Hang googles (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The links given by the above user are utterly minor, from publications that scarcely register. KaisaL (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Half the sources are user generated. Those that aren't--as well as this subject's accomplishments--are uniformly small time, insignificant. A good example is the touted accomplishment for winning East Coast Hip Hop album of the year at the Canadian Urban television Awards. The video clip of him receiving it (linked in reference 4) suggest an event with the level of excitement/importance on par with an end of the year high school awards ceremonies. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:41, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques van Staden[edit]

Jacques van Staden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The player failed to make any first class appearances, he fails WP:NRU. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 20:54, 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 03:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hopefully. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is nice, but I don't think he is notable per our guidelines. He definitely fails WP:NRU for rugby by all means. He is not a professional player and did not play in any of the international competitions laid out in the guidelines. He apparently hoped to play for Griquas (rugby), but that apparently did not materialize. I dont think some unofficial test matches count and he did not join their official rooster in the aftermath apparently (cant find him on their (homepage). Apart from that the article is lacking actual RS; most are just player profiles, facebook posts or youtube videos. I tried to find some RS but I couldn't find anything, above bare mentions in some 1-paragraph news, which would resemble a RS. Since he also does not satisfy WP:GNG this way, due a lack of RS, I think the article should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 12:20, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Fabiano[edit]

Claudio Fabiano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article creator contested PROD. This is a footballer who plays for a team in the National Premier Leagues NSW, which is a semi-professional league. Because of this, he fails WP:NFOOTY TonyBallioni (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into list of current players in Sutherland Sharks FC as per such sections in many other team articles. Does not appear to hold sufficient notability for its own article. Aoziwe (talk) 13:09, 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. Mkdwtalk 08:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Frances[edit]

Ellen Frances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A relatively obscure producer and director. A Google search doesn't turn up much of use. Most of the "editors" appear to be a single editor who jumps to a new account each time he/she edits. Frequent claims of "ownership" by this editor, leaving me to believe that the article is either autobiographical or a COI. Subject fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The current article has been gutted for some reason. The original version diff was more informative. However, I also think she is not notable per our guidelines. Everything she did was low level work typical of film students during and after their studies. We cant make an article for every film student/low level director who did some short films and a few obscure music videos. I tried to spot some sources which would satisfy WP:GNG, but was not successful. There are some mentions in blogs and there alike, but that's it. I therefore think the article should be deleted per WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. Dead Mary (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not to say that she is not a very talented individual, but it is clear that she hasn't yet attracted the critical attention and comment necessary to pass WP:CREATIVE. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:14, 28 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. Mkdwtalk 07:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CarDekho[edit]

AfDs for this article:
CarDekho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real coverage of this run of the mill website, same as last time around. The citations consist of blogs and weak "news" orgs that "write" articles that are mere paraphrases of announcements and press releases. No real reporting, If the subject weren't touting these "events", nobody would know that they happened because they don't matter outside of this company's tiny fishbowl. They are using Wikipedia for PR. Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 23:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possible notability for parent corporation does not transfer to subsidiary, and the sources available for subsidiary are apparent repackaged PR. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:26, 28 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeetendr Sehdev[edit]

Jeetendr Sehdev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional biography that does not assert notability. Mostly passing mentions, so doesn't meet GNG. Is not a notable professor either, nor is he notable for his largely uncited "studies" that rarely, if ever, appear in peer-reviewed publications. At the very best this is WP:TOOSOON, at worst basic spam. Ref spam is being used to hide the fact that none of these sources are in-depth. YesMovementEtTU (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteComment - I agree that the article needs some work regarding promotional tone - particularly the intro which blurs the situation through all the name-dropping. And it needs better sources than IMdB, for instance. But he has widespread coverage in national news sources. I'll take a crack at editing and see if I can find some more in-depth coverage.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind once I saw how much of the content shouldn't be in the body of the article - and likely not even in notes. I will say WP:TOOSOON on this one. There was nothing in Google scholar that he had written, there's someone in WorldCat about Kim Kardashian, and since the article mentions the number of studies he does - but they are not published, I cannot establish notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not sufficiently notable for a standalone article, per consensus, and there's already a well-sourced account of the incident at Spring Valley High School (South Carolina)#History. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Valley High School police incident[edit]

Spring Valley High School police incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very poorly executed fork of an existing article (Spring Valley High School (South Carolina)). It is possible that this incident may someday be notable (I'll even weakly concede it may be now), but this article at hand is so full of POV and BLP violation as to warrant TNT. The vast majority of sources are from the time of the incident. The only more recent sources discuss a lawsuit being filed (which is not something we would normally discuss without one of the parties being notable and a ton of sourcing) and one is an op-ed, unusable for our purposes. I still don't think this clears NOTNEWS, but if it does, we should start over. Under no circumstances would I advocate a merge to the school as there is already too much about this there (per RECENT). John from Idegon (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've edited the article to try and address some of the neutrality issues and bring it up to date (in the event no-one was prosecuted over the incident). However on balance I believe it's just not notable enough. Neiltonks (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / Redirect to Spring Valley High School (South Carolina) There appears to be no independent notability for the incident at this point, based on the sourcing in the article and what I see from a Google search. Merge whatever encyclopedic content is here to the school article and turn this title into a redirect. Alansohn (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect as per Alansohn, I'm not sure if the sourcing is adequate to pass NOTNEWS. GABgab 15:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I think most of the relevant information has been covered in the school's article, and this incident does not merit the gigantic wall of text that's currently on the page. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) st170etalk 23:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Adventism[edit]

Progressive Adventism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe the progressive adventism article is notoriously inaccurate as there is no objective standard for what a progressive adventist or a conservative adventist is Jonnymoon96 (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article can probably use some good working on, but there are quite a few sources there that seem to disagree with the nominator's rationale. TimothyJosephWood 20:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of -related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the distinction between the groups is quite apparent but it does need improvement. --MindyWaters (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While a clunky article, I believe this topic meets GNG based on sources showing in the footnotes. N.B. Nominator: many sociological and political concepts are not precisely defined or are defined differently in different sources. This does not invalidate the inclusion-worthiness of the topic, it only complicates the writing of the article. Take, for example, conservative or liberal. Carrite (talk) 15:19, 27 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 uncontested beyond the current improvements (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamika Lawrence[edit]

Tamika Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable performer; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. As far as I can tell, none of the sources listed offer much, if any credibility at all. One is her personal Facebook page, most others are her website, with a couple of IMDB references which are also user submitted. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. References found are not independent of subject and do not meet WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikipedical: Not sure if you have seen the changes by Hmlarson but you may want to review. Mkdwtalk 07:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Broadway.com and playbill.com references incorporated. Previous "references" cleaned up. Article could use expansion and further referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now based on the improvements made by Hmlarson. Thanks. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hmlarson has addressed the concerns regarding independent sourcing and the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Furthermore, she meets WP:NACTOR's criteria "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Mkdwtalk 07:03, 28 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reservations (website)[edit]

Reservations (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. References are largely press releases or not written independently from the subject. Lacks significant coverage to assert notability. — ξxplicit 01:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing evidence or even suggestion that this rises to the level of encyclopedic/notable., and it reads as if it were the site's own "About Us" page. --Calton | Talk 02:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Available coverage consists mostly of press releases, and so the site fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. /wiae /tlk 03:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article on an intermediating company website, with content and references predominantly primary or routine announcements of the partnership deals inherent to that kind of business. No evidence of notability, whether as website or company. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayathri Ranjani Samarakone[edit]

Jayathri Ranjani Samarakone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. High Commissioners are not inherently notable. Unable to find any indepth coverage about any of her roles.Dan arndt (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 00:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I meant to comment far sooner, there's nothing genuinely substantial aside from the name itself and there's nothing to suggest the confirmed notability in an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 27 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 A7 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 13:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Schriner[edit]

Stephen Schriner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:COI aside, it seems as though he's only been relevant in the music industry over the last year. Per WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC his discography is not notable enough for him to deserve his own page at this time. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:26, 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 Deletion: No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Avallone[edit]

Hunter Avallone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG. The only reliable sources I could find outside of his YouTube page were articles about a Transphobic rant he posted earlier in the year. No additional sources were provided aside from his Youtube page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable YouTuber lacking significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • BUT HE'S CONTINUING TO GROW AT RAPID SPEEDS!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single Stream (film)[edit]

Single Stream (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, no coverage in independent sources. Ideally this would be up for a Speedy Delete (A7) but the author of the article has declined a Proposed Deletion so here we are. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Note to Exemplo347: I didn't put it up for a speedy delete because A7 doesn't apply to films! Largoplazo (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google finds not one mention of the director/star Logan Crossley in association with the phrase "single stream". Since it's unimaginable that a film would be notable, yet never have been mentioned online in association with its director, I feel it's safe to say this isn't a notable film. Largoplazo (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As i mentioned on the talk page I was able to find a film with Toby Lee on IMDB however i was not able to find and additional resources thus my vote for deletion. Necrosis Buddha 00:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As per Talk:Single_Stream_(film) I move for strong deletion. Necrosis Buddha 00:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Really should be a speedy but oh well. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Delete While it might not be an actual hoax in the sense that this person did actually make a terrible 14 minute video, the article is close enough to a hoax to be called one for all intents and purposes. Impact: One study states that two individuals in Houston, Texas chose to refill their La Croix cans instead of opening another one because of Crossley. It's also probably attempted promotion via hoax article. It's not even close to notable...
Just...cite the entirety of Wikipedia deletion policy as the reason for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 18:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One word in your analysis leads me to ask you to read WP:Civility. There's no justification for being mean, and the perceived quality of a topic is irrelevant to inclusion considerations. Largoplazo (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I happen to believe that I take this article every bit as seriously as its creator did.
  2. Whether it is terrible may not be relevant, but whether it is a hoax, promotional, and non-notable does seem to be.
  3. If you think that saying "terrible" is uncivil, well, I envy you because you apparently haven't seen some of the dark recesses of Wikipedia I've stumbled upon.
  4. I'm starting to think I'm the only one who did my WP:BEFORE and made myself actually watch the terrible video. TimothyJosephWood 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe we may be the only two people in the world who are unconnected with this film who have watched the entire film. That is how you say something negative while remaining civil! Exemplo347 (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Touche. TimothyJosephWood 13:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. If I steal $500 from you, it isn't a crime because some people have had even more than that stolen from them. Nothing is wrong unless it's the worst of all things that could be wrong. And WP:BEFORE in no way required you to watch it. Largoplazo (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Category:Wikipedia humor. TimothyJosephWood 14:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the fact here is that this film in no way meets Notability and fails on that standard alone. Suggesting that watching a film on Vimeo to justify its notability is more or less outlandish, regardless this would still fail to prove any verifiable sources for the article . Necrosis Buddha 15:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the article's format I would say SoapBox would apply here as well Necrosis Buddha 15:06, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_December_20&oldid=1142623366"