Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 December	30 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia McCauley[edit]

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

Totally fails WP:GNG. Her acting career is comprised of un-notable short films and being a stand in on Step Up. Her murder really isn't especially notable either. If that's not the case, I'd move the article to "Death of Tricia McCauley", as she herself is not notable. Rusted AutoParts 23:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two short films and a stand-in for a lead actress maketh one not notable, per listing at IMDb, despite her resumé at her website. As for her death news, tragic and a miscarriage in justice yes, notably encyclopedic no. — Wylie pedia 02:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: While she herself is not notable, the nature of her murder could make it notable pending future developments in the news. I'd support renaming article to "Death of Tricia McCauley" in the meantime. 70.51.82.112 (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree respectfully -- No sense in renaming if we don't know yet if "the nature of her murder could make it notable pending future developments in the news". Not every murder victim is notable, as we all know. I do support waiting a while to see what turns up but I will support deletion, tragic as McCauley's death is, if, in their entirety, the circumstances of her life and death do not confer notability. Quis separabit? 06:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect even Death of Tricia McCauley may not be warranted. Quis separabit? 04:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable not notable. Redirect to Death of Tricia McCauley. She considered non-notable by herself, delete Shiesmine (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNOTABLE WereWolf (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Quis separabit?, and if the circumstances of her death become notable, then the article could be moved to "Death of Tricia McCauley". Marionlad (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her death was horrible, but it didn't get national media attention. Her life was not notable, either. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with what has been said above. Lepricavark (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a person you heard anything about until her death. DrKilleMoff (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nebish Benson[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Fails WP:ENT. Should probably have been Speedy, but a misinformed editor removed CSD because the individual had been in some notable films in minor roles. reddogsix (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as I concur, entirely trivial works and simply nothing at all amounting to genuine substance and the sole explanation for that is because the works aren't significant. SwisterTwister talk 23:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if the films were notable, all his roles seem to be "Young Rajiv" type; none are major roles. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Consensus was to merge. Will take care of it. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bane (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, unless some third-party sources can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Bane is one of the major Forgotten Realms gods and an antagonist in multiple forms of media, including tabletop adventures, video games, and novels. Despite this, I'm having some trouble finding significant coverage. There were a few promising sources on Google Books, but I either couldn't access them or they turn out to be trivial mentions. For example, he's mentioned in this book, but it's tough to tell if it's a trivial mention; it looks like it probably is. I was all set to vote to keep, but there doesn't seem to be enough stuff digitally archived for me to back up my vote. If someone finds offline sources that are independent of TSR/Wizards/Mattel, we can see about recreating the page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities per above. Like, NinjaRobotPirate, I'm actually moderately surprised there is so little out there on him, as, unlike the myriad of other Forgotten Realms gods, he is actually a major villain in the D&D universe. But, since there does not seem to be many substantial non-primary sources out there, I'm going to have to go with Merge. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Glenister[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability criteria. The article suggests she has had a brief appearance on television some years ago. A web search finds no reliable sources providing evidence of notability Pi (Talk to me! ) 20:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress who does not fit our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a not very notable enough to show guidelines. Shiesmine (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Shiesmine (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Sky News source appears to be dead. The Telegraph source is not about her - so can't be used to establish notability. A web search shows no evidence of anything with her as the focus - which shows that notability can't be esablish and should be deleted. I consider the sources online and identified in the article to be trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources as they only mention her and and she is not the focus. Therefore, the WP:BASIC criteria is failed. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

APL Photonics[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason " Non-notable, relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator, who added a phrase that the journal is indexed in the Web of Science. Wos is not an indexing service, but an access platform. In fact, this journal is indexed by the Emerging Sources Citation Index, a rather non-selective database that even contains several predatory journals (of course, I'm not saying this journal is predatory, this is just to indicate that the ESCI is not selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. PROD reason therefore still stands, article creation premature. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a solid journal from a respected publisher, but it is too new for independent reliable sources or to be included in selective indices. Without such reliable sources, the topic currently fails WP:GNG and WP:NJournals thresholds. I expect this will eventually become notable, as with its sister publication APL Materials, but right now it is WP:TOOSOON. Hence delete, with no prejudice to re-creation when reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any journal published by AIP is ex officio notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Even solid publishers occasionally have the occasional dud. As of now, we don't know yet whether this journal is going to make it or not. And I think that ex officio definitely goes against WP:INHERITED... --Randykitty (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:TOOSOON. Fails GNG and NJournal at this point in time. Jytdog (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This journal is indexed in The Emerging Sources Citation Index ("Master Journal List". Intellectual Property and Science. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 3 January 2017.) and The Directory of Open Access Journals ("Directory of Open Access Journals". APL Photonics. Directory of Open Access Journals. Retrieved 3 January 2017.).Physicsfan2015 (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)— Physicsfan2015 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: neither of those two indexes is selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. The ESCI is so permissive, that it even contains known predatory journals. DOAJ strives to include every OA journal, regardless of its importance or influence. So this still is no evidence of passing NJournals or GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a new journal from a reputable publisher, this seems likely to be notable eventually, but I think it's WP:TOOSOON, and the article doesn't actually present any evidence that it's notable already. Nor does it present any informative content that couldn't be obtained directly from the journal's home page. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Randykitty. This fails WP:NJOURNALS, likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. No objection to recreation if/when this becomes notable. This could alternatively be merged at American Institute of Physics though. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpublican[edit]

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

This is a poorly written article with unverified POV claims whose subject is a non-notable neologism which has hardly ever been used. It might meet criteria for more speedy or uncontroversial deletion given all these problems but I am not sure. So just in case any fellow editors want to keep this article instead of deleting it, I decided to do the AfD process so that the English Wikipedia community could decide whether to delete it, keep it, merge it, redirect it, or something else.

Personally I, the one nominating it, want it deleted for all the reasons given in the first sentence. I do not feel that improving the article would be worth it, since even if it is made NPOV and all unverified claims are removed and it is better written, it will still be an article about a non-notable neologism which has hardly ever been used, so fixing the article would be a waste of time in my opinion as even if it is fixed it is still about a non-notable neologism. "Trumpocrat" was also copyrighted by Donald Trump at the same time as "Trumpublican" and has far more hits in search engines than "Trumpublican", but there is no "Trumpocrat" article, nor should there be, and "Trumpublican" is even less notable than "Trumpocrat". Hardly anyone uses either of those neologisms and if we had a Wikipedia article for every neologism that a notable person in politics copyrighted it would be a very long list of very short articles that would have to be created. Other people please feel free to state what you want done with this article (keep, delete, redirect, merge, etc.) below and give reasons why. But as far as this particular neologism goes, being copyrighted, then mentioned once on an obscure blog and then once by a columnist at a single newspaper does not make something particularly notable, especially not if it is a neologism.

Anyway personally along with being fine with a delete, I would also be fine with having this be a redirect to some portion of the Donald Trump article about his supporters or some other article about Donald Trump supporters if anyone can come up with something for this to redirect to. I would not want to merge this with any other article, because there is not any quality content in this article worth putting into any other article. Yetisyny (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM or WP:WORDISSUBJECT. All that can be inferred from the sources in the article is that the term is an abandoned trademark by Donald Trump. No evidence is presented in the article to confirm that "a member of the Republican Party who advocates for a small, fiscally conservative, republican government" is indeed most often termed a Trumpublican. I find that quite unlikely given that dozens of millions of people voted for Trump, yet the term gets only 8,660 Google hits, so I'd call this a neologism that hasn't taken off yet. If we instead treat the term itself as the subject of the article, it again fails per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, as it has little possibility to grow far beyond the one sentence in the article that concerns the word itself. Daß Wölf 02:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wölf, as it lacks any significance like Reagan Democrat. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for deletion? I originally put this article into the AfD (articles for deletion) process and my comment is the one at the top recommending deletion. The 2 comments since then by Daß Wölf and Yoshiman6464 both are ones I entirely agree with which also call for deletion for very similar reasons. Nobody has argued for keeping this article or cited any Wikipedia policies that would justify keeping it, so it seems there is probably a consensus among editors to delete this article.

And as defined in the article, the article lists a number of policy views "Trumpublicans" allegedly have, which are the exact same policy views the majority of mainstream Republicans would probably agree with both now and for the last few decades, and arguably the article is just about Republicans in general and not supporters of Donald Trump. It links to the "issues" page of Donald Trump's campaign website which only has 2 issues on it, immigration and ending ObamaCare, neither of which is among the issues listed in this article as one "Trumpublicans" care about. Basically none of the citations in the article are done accurately, to have the article reflect the contents of the sources that are being cited.

This neologism is largely unused (unlike, say, "post-truth" or "alt-right" which are indeed notable political terms that gained widespread usage in 2016) and does not seem to meet the guidelines for general notability on Wikipedia, which specifically have as grounds for exclusion neologisms that are not in widespread usage. Also the small number of comments reflects a lack of interest in this article because it is such a little-used neologism and article almost nobody looks at, thus underscoring its lack of general notability. --Yetisyny (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I would have relisted, but it's already been re-listed twice. The current input seems to indicate that he may be notable. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yemi Idowu[edit]

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

Article doesn't seem to say why the businessman Mr. Idowu who owns a football club is notable. Some coverage in references but several references are dead links. scope_creep (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After reading the article and going through references online, I'm of the opinion that he slightly passes "a" notability criteria, the only problem is I don't know which criteria he passes and I'm not patient enough to locate the criteria. He has held a few positions that are worthy to be looked into and there is a short Blomberg biography on him. He also offered to sponsor the Olympic National team of Nigeria. The main reason why I'm commenting is that I don't like seeing an Nigerian AFD post without any input. Darreg (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh - Hindi films actor[edit]

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

Non-notable Bollywood actor from the 50s. Fails WP:GNG. He has appeared in many films, but they don't appear to be independently notable either to meet WP:NACTOR. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GK Elite Sportswear[edit]

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

The last AfD was closed 4 years ago after two week keep votes, with the best argument being "it shows up on Google News" (WP:GOOGLEHITS fallacy. All I see is press releases, some mentions in passing - mostly from trade journals. I think it fails WP:NCOMPANY, which means it is WP:CORPSPAM. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the last AFD - There's tons of sourcesThe AFD being closed 4 years ago has no relevancy here, Meets GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Om Records[edit]

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

None of the information i've found online supports any notability of the record label itself. It has some large artists signed but notability is not inherited. I'd say this fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I easily found sources for this label, not surprising given the large number of notable artists that have been signed to this label. Correct, notability is not inherited, but a record label becomes notable by the notable artistic output it releases, and its impact upon culture, and this is best represented by number of notable artists and length of operating history. This topic meets WP:GNG (see article talk page, I found some sources that can be used, but I didn't look very hard), and is a notable record label, GNG aside. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UDF 7[edit]

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

Not significant by WP:NASTRO. No significant coverage, no claims of significance. In fact all I could find were two entries in lists of related objects. Lithopsian (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1 galaxy out of the 200 billion known galaxies out there. Not notable Grammarphile (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into a relevant parent article. It's millions of stars, I can't imagine that there isn't something notable in there that eventually will be added. South Nashua (talk) 11:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Regarding the 'keep or merge' vote above, we cannot presume that this object will eventually become notable at some point in the indefinite future. If this were the standard, we would have hundreds of millions of stubs about nearly every known astronomical object, merely duplicating basic information from astronomical catalogues (see WP:NOT). This is exactly why the notability criteria of WP:NASTRO exist, and I concur with the nominator's application of that policy to this object. It (1) is not visible to the unaided eye and has never been so, (2) is not in a catalogue of interest to amateur astronomers or a catalogue of historical interest, (3) has not been the subject of in-depth attention in reliable secondary sources, and (4) was discovered after 1850. Thus, it fails WP:NASTRO. Astro4686 (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a single paper on google scholar that mentions this object. Therefore, not notable. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nom withdrawn without any opposition. Black Kite (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simona Brown[edit]

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

~~Article fails GNG and WP:NACTOR.~~ DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is notable and well sourced. -- Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 21:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has received some substantial press coverage: I identified the references already present, one of which is a news article all about her, and added more; she has been a recurring character in several miniseries and has an upcoming co-star role. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Forgoing the customary two relists because this has already gone through a WP:NPASR, and anyone who is actually interested in defending this article would have done so by now. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy, Sam & Jodi[edit]

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

Delete. Relist following a no consensus because no participation closure on the first nomination -- but this is still an improperly sourced article about a radio program. This one is syndicated, so it would pass WP:NMEDIA if it were properly referenced to reliable source coverage -- but of the 44 "references" here, fully 75 per cent of them are the primary source webpages of stations that carry the show (which are not sources that can confer notability by themselves, because they're not independent of the subject) and nearly all of the others are press releases and WP:BLOGS. There's just one source here that qualifies as actual media coverage, and it's a blurb which isn't about this show, but simply verifies a tangential fact about a charity event the hosts are involved in while not actually naming the hosts in conjunction with it at all -- which means it doesn't contribute notability either, and even if it did one source isn't enough to pass WP:GNG by itself. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source it properly, but it's not entitled to keep an article just because it exists, if the article is sourced like this. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 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 speedy delete. Clearly non-notable club. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Fenix down (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Neath A.F.C[edit]

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

Newly-formed amateur sports club. No third-party coverage, no sign of any kind of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails all relevant guidelines. Looks like another one of millions of non-notable "lads playing at the park" teams -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not play at a high enough level to confer notability. Article seems like a Sunday league Facebook page rather than an encyclopedia article. Kosack (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 17:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 17:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 17:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN, WP:NORG, and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 17:20, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Bernstein[edit]

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

AfD created by request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion.

The rationale given by the IP editor was:

The subject of this article has not itself received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Also -can someone fix this - it appears this should be the second afd for this person. The first one is also worth reading. And resulted in delete, overwhelmingly.

TimothyJosephWood 19:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated at Afd is Bernstein Medical. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the same reasons as last time around. There were interesting lengthy discussions - which revealed, among other things, that Bernstein was not a professor at Columbia University, as asserted in the second sentence of this article. (If you have some time to waste and can resist assaults on your will to live, see also User talk:Rbernstein.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete as not the actual nominator and looking at the last discussion, plus the comment above. TimothyJosephWood 22:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete When articles claim a subject is a distinguished professor at a major academic institution but they are no such thing, then it is time to delete the article. This is promotional puffery that needs to be elimanated from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)\[reply]
delete and salt - i did read through all that and indeed almost lost my will to live. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I was on the keep side of the previous AfD but I'm not going to continue to defend this. The obvious promotional intent outweighs any marginal notability that the subject may have. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should never have been created after the last AfD. Lepricavark (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT FYI: It appears the nominator has been making COI edits to another dermatologist's (competitor's?) page (Cameron Rokhsar) and several edits/tags/noms to other dermatologist's pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E016:A700:D4E1:E2A1:3568:3C85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:810A:BF00:D8A4:F18D:7DA9:E7FD (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernstein Medical[edit]

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

AfD created by request from IP editor at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. The rationale given was:

The subject of this article has not itself received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. TimothyJosephWood 19:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated at Afd is Robert M. Bernstein. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SPAM. See also Robert M. Bernstein. Narky Blert (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an advert. Of the 16 references listed, not one actually has any depth of coverage of the clinic. While some mention Bernstein, many don't make any mention of his clinic: 1) a feature on hair loss, clinic gets passing mention 2) a quarterback consults Bernstein, clinic has passing mention 3) dead link 4) passing mention for Bernstein, clnic not actually mentioned by name 5) is a press release 6) Bernstein mentioned, clinic not 7) Bernstein quoted quite a bit, but no mention of the clinic itself 8) interview with Bernstein, briefest mention of the location of his clinic 9) lots of people and their workplaces mentioned, including Bernstein and his clinic 10) No mention of Bernstein or his clinic 11) Bernstein is mentioned, clinic is not 12-16) links are not given but text suggests they aren't providing coverage of the clinic itself. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as clear advertising with only clear company announcements and listings as sources, that's enough to delete as it is. SwisterTwister talk 18:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt obvious promo Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant promotion. Lepricavark (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT FYI: It appears the nominator has been making COI edits to another dermatologist's (competitor's?) page (Cameron Rokhsar) and several edits/tags/noms to other dermatologist's pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E016:A700:D4E1:E2A1:3568:3C8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:810A:BF00:D8A4:F18D:7DA9:E7FD (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Mulinix[edit]

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

The first AfD of this article just closed as "no consensus", because it was a multi-article AfD which made it harder to get a clear decision. This person has no claim to notability outside of being a faithless elector in the 2016 presidential election. This is the definition of WP:BLP1E. It was created due to WP:RECENTISM and fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. TimothyJosephWood 19:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to the faithless 2016 electors article. I voted "weak keep" in the previous, multi-Afd, but, looking at the coverage, there isn't enough to support verifiable content about Mulinix as an individual. All discussion of him is strictly about this one event.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just plain one event notability. Being a US elector is not a position of notability, faithless of otherwise. Everything we need to know about him can be included in the article on faithless electors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am striking my previous vote to merge or redirect the article. Mulinix is notable for other reasons. Back in 2007, there was a short article in The Honolulu Advertiser about him taking a position at Bishop Museum]. He also received national coverage via the Associated Press in an article about some of the US electors. Note that this was four days before the College met in Hawaii, and Mulinix at the time planned to vote for Clinton. Regarding Mulinix's vote for Sanders, he's received some coverage of him as an individual in The Hawaii Independent. In addition to these three stories, he's gotten some minor note through the years for his activism: [1], [2], [3], [4].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional minor coverage and mentions regarding his activism: [5] (includes discussion of Mulinix's Dakota heritage), [6], [7].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not kidding when you say "minor" coverage. I don't think those sources add much of anything to notability. They confirm he exists, and that he's a member of 350.org, but don't cover him to the point of establishing GNG. I don't think image captions count as coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, those additional findings of mine do not help toward notability, which is why I didn't claim that they did.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator and per 3Family6. MB298 (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite the awe some people feel about the President electors, they are in fact pretty normal every day people and in fact there is often an effort to make sure that they are ordinary to avoid someone significant or politically powerful from becoming an elector. For this reason, subject fails notability and is known for a single event. -O.R.^Comms 17:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 3Family6's findings. The previous deletions implied that he was only notable of one event (when he was known before the 2016 election). Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all actually convincing apart from the simple information and the events themselves, which absolutely inherit him no automatic notability whatsoever, regardless of the news involved. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Faithless electors in the 2016 American Presidential election as per the suggestion at the previous AfD. This is history. BLP1E is not an argument to delete, it is an argument to merge. Same for BIO1E. Unscintillating (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Female sexual ornaments[edit]

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

This article was contributed in good faith as part of an educational assignment but the topic seems to have been selected carelessly. Biological ornaments are a notable topic, but we already have an article on them, I can't find any evidence that female ornamentation is considered a distinctly notable concept in evolutionary biology, and the existing article isn't long enough to justify a content fork. Moreover, for the most part the article isn't actually about sexual ornaments. It has some essay-like background on sexual selection theory and ornamentation, but is effectively a rewrite of physical attractiveness in evolutionary psychology's peculiar "let's pretend human behaviour is no different to lemurs'" style. There's also an overreliance on primary literature and OR issues throughout. I did suggest that some of the content might be salvaged and merged into other articles, but the discussion on the talk page has gone stale and it's been suggested WP:TNT might be a better route. – Joe (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom is correct that the article as it stands is not coherent; it strays over the ground covered by multiple articles (WP:CFORK, multiple times) on more or less non-overlapping topics. There may possibly be some minor fragments that might be saved, but the existing articles are better written and better cited in their respective areas than the current article, so frankly there's not much we can do with this other than to delete it. It wasn't necessary and provides no new encyclopedic coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that this page isn't salvageable. It is so poorly sourced that statements have strayed away from accuracy into the realm of pseudoscience, and a huge amount of work would be needed to bring it back. The problem has undoubtedly arisen at least partly because a citation to an entire book for a particular statement does not attract the sort of checking that one would hope the general wikipedia audience would provide. Also agree that other pages exist that cover the material better. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:57, 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 redirect to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Guerra[edit]

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

The first AfD of this article just closed as "no consensus", because it was a multi-article AfD which made it harder to get a clear decision. This person has no claim to notability outside of being a faithless elector in the 2016 presidential election. This is the definition of WP:BLP1E. It was created due to WP:RECENTISM and fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. TimothyJosephWood 19:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~extensive~~ coverage of her as an individual. BLP1E should be considered, but I think the coverage is significant enough and continuous enough to justify her inclusion. This isn't just a marginal event, and there is enough content to write a short biography about Guerra. There also is continued coverage of the legal case involving her and the other Washington faithless electors.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see "extensive" coverage anywhere. I see more coverage of her than some of the other faithless electors, but nothing that supersedes BLP1E. Her role in the 2016 election is marginal. It changed nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does seems a lot like a marginal event: a protest vote of no consequence other than a $1,000 fine. Searching for her gets quite a few results, but searching for news with "Levi Guerra" -elector -electors literally eliminates all English language sources. TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will take back the adjective "extensive" - the coverage isn't extensive, but it is significant. Most sources discuss Guerra only within the context of being a faithless elector, with barely any biographical information. However, I was thinking of this article, which has some enough information to add reliable biographical information about Guerra. For me, that is the threshold for inclusion - if there is enough reliable coverage to create a short biography, outside of the immediate reasons for why the subject is notable. I stand by my keep vote, whether the community decides to accept it or not.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: What constitutes a single event? Guerra has received media coverage since November, and coverage since her vote due to the legal case.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but she doesn't seem to have received any coverage whatsoever not directly related to this one event. The event itself is of somewhat dubious political importance (i.e., it had little to no chance of changing the results), and her vote wasn't even geared toward changing the result (i.e., she wasn't a pledged elector of Trump who switched to Clinton), but was entirely and completely a protest write in of a moderate (Powell) who wasn't even running for president, and by an elector pledged to Clinton in the first place. By her own admission she is only 19 and this is my first time being involved in politics. Not only that, but she isn't the focal point of the story, because the story is not a single Hamilton Elector, but part of seven (eight counting one who resigned). That's the real story.

Maybe this is the start of a blossoming political career once she...you know...at least finishes up her sophomore year in college, and if that is the case an article may be appropriate. But there is currently no indication that this BLP would be of any lasting importance above and beyond the main article on the electors as a group. TimothyJosephWood 15:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are things to consider. I think that the specific coverage of her in the KUOW source tips the scale in favor of Guerra's biography being kept. She's famous because of her role in a historically noteworthy event (sure, it didn't accomplish much, at least, not immediately, who knows how it will affect things down the road, but it's still noteworthy), and, in the context of that event, has received specific coverage. Since the policy concerns of BLP1E are not relevant in this particular case, we have the less strict guidelines of BIO1E. The spirit of the guideline could be debated - I think that she's notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The KUOW source is a puff piece by a local NPR station. Good on her that she "stood down bullies in the wrestling room" and that she told one of her college professors she wanted to know more about politics, but none of that has anything to do with an encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 16:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Puff piece" is not exactly a specific definition, and is very open for interpretation. And not everything in an outside article might be encyclopedic by Wikipedia standards, but that doesn't mean that we throw out the entire source. I also disagree that an entire article has to just be about the biography subject - the Guardian piece that you mention isn't limited to Guerra, but that doesn't mean that its coverage of Guerra is insignificant.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puff piece, and yes, that is my interpretation of exactly what it is. Look at this adorable small-town teenager whose political naivete won't stop her from taking on the big dogs. Look how cute, she reads the Federalist Papers. She's from... (and this is actual article content) where potatoes and onions are more relevant than Trump. She's their latest celebrity. The last one was Castro’s Uncle Paco, who was in a McDonald’s commercial for his potatoes.

Join us tomorrow where we profile a three legged therapy dog who's not gonna let cancer keep him down. TimothyJosephWood 17:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything in the reliable source guidelines that say local news outlets are not reliable sources. The link you gave to "puff piece" details promotional or advertising articles. This article isn't. It is a human interest story, yes, but about an elector who has made international headlines. You personally may not appreciate that article's style but I don't see anything there that renders it unreliable by Wikipedia standards.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia standards: Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news). TimothyJosephWood 10:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I missed that when I looked through NEWSORG.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passing one-event coverage. Not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E clearly applies here. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looking through some past discussion regarding WP:BLP1E, that policy was created in order to protect the privacy of individuals. Guerra has attracted, and hasn't complained about, the media attention, so there is not need to be concerned about a Wikipedia article violating her privacy. The more relevant guideline (but not policy) would be WP:BIO1E, which in this case I don't think applies.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just pointing this out to closer, but the page is currently receiving about a hundred views daily. If there's another analytical tool to see how many of those are wikilinking from another article, or reaching it through direct search, that would be more helpful, but it does seem like not leaving a redirect behind would be unhelpful for readers, especially since Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 is a very long descriptive title, and unlikely to be searched for verbatim. TimothyJosephWood 12:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite the awe some people feel about the President electors, they are in fact pretty normal every day people and in fact there is often an effort to make sure that they are ordinary to avoid someone significant or politically powerful from becoming an elector. For this reason, subject fails notability and is known for a single event. -O.R.^Comms 17:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She is a faithless elector who voted for Colin Powell, nothing more. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Faithless electors in the 2016 American Presidential election as per the suggestion at the previous AfD. This is history. BLP1E is not an argument to delete, it is an argument to merge. Same for BIO1E. Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Miller[edit]

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

Simply an advertisement for a local company with only trivial local attention about and nothing beyond the simple PR it is, there's nothing amounting to actual independent notability and substance and searches mirror this; the next is the fact it was deleted in 2008 as advertising which says enough there, including the fact this is exactly what it is now: Complete with "clients", "services", "PR awards", etc, that alone violates our advertising policies because it's blatant advertising, with no hopes of meaningful improvements. To the state the obvious, this was actually contributed to and watched by what seem to be company employees and, also worth noting, this was tagged for G11 in 2008 after restarting, but removed with the basis of "Send to AfD", but we all know our standards and policies have changed, so "improve it" is not applicable for ignoring WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 18:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just a law firm going about it's business with WP:PROMO copy. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Article reads like (self-)promotion, and I don't see how it could easily be resolved. Aside from that, I'm not sure whether it even satisfies WP:N and WP:V. A quick Google search has not provided any sources which would support notability (it's mere existence does not qualify per WP:DIRECTORY). As mentioned, it was tagged for speedy deletion in 2008. From the Article history, it seems notability was asserted (sufficiently to reject speedy deletion), but I was unable to find the arguments supporting notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talk2chun (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo form of notability has been presented.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete According to the Indianapolis Business Journal, [8], Ice Miller is the third largest of the "The big four" law firms in Indianapolis. We currently have articles on all four.

Taft Stettinius Hollister LLP
Barnes & Thornburg
Ice Miller
Faegre Baker Daniels

Much of this page could be trimmed, and as a stub including the history of company name changes, it serves an encyclopedic purpose. There are currently about ten Wikipedia pages that have or could have Wikilinks. One way to do this would be to merge this article to a new article on the big four, where currently the other three would remain standalone articles.

A natural champion for the article, someone who deprodded it, has been indeffed, so a soft delete represents the state this article would have, had the prod gone through. Unscintillating (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promode R. Bandyopadhyay[edit]

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

Awards do not seem prestigious enough for WP:PROF. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awards are prestigious enough and notable.^[1]^[2] 'The Freeman Scholar Award' is given to a person of significant expertise in fluids engineering and 'The Fluids Engineering Award' is bestowed for outstanding contributions, over a period of years, to the engineering profession and especially to the field of fluids engineering through research, practice, and/or teaching. Moreover the fact that Promode R. Bandyopadhyay is a 'Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)'(ASME#ASME_fellow) totally qualifies the criteria set in point No.3 of Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific criteria notes. Lastly, a person such as Promode R. Bandyopadhyay who is having 17 U.S. Patents^[3] or inventions (and more than 5 pending) must have contributed significantly in the field of Engineering which again corresponds with point No.1 of Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific criteria notes. According to Google Scholars database, Promode R. Bandyopadhyay has a total citation of 3331, h-index of 24, i10-index of 55 (though the Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness according to Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#citation metrics) till date against 172 publications listed there. Quite notably, one of his papers titled 'New aspects of turbulent boundary-layer structure' has been cited by 800.^[4] Suman chowdhury 22 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Five publications with over 100 citations each is good enough for WP:PROF#C1, and ASME Fellow is good enough for #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the citation counts are just enough for him to pass WP:PROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esther John (faithless elector)[edit]

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

The first AfD of this article just closed as "no consensus", because it was a multi-article AfD which made it harder to get a clear decision. This person has no claim to notability outside of being a faithless elector in the 2016 presidential election. This is the definition of WP:BLP1E. It was created due to WP:RECENTISM and fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. TimothyJosephWood 19:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect into Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. There is no significant coverage of John as an individual.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything in the article is about her being a faithless elector, which can be covered in our article related to the faithless electors as a group, there is no justification for a specific article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep* (worth 5 regular votes)these 538 individuals are the only ones with any real political power or actual voting rights in our authoritarian, anti-democratic dictatorship (now run by a professional con artist who is owned by the Russians thanks to these clowns.) We must learn more about these tyrants. 70.214.73.124 (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

70.214.73.124 Wikipedia is not a platform for political opinion writing. None of this rationale has to do with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The fact that you don't like that the United States elects its chief executive through a popularly elected Electoral College is not a reason to keep this article. And I find it odd that someone who is opposed to that kind of system would try to make their vote count as five instead of one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the 'worth five regular votes' thing was pretty funny.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 03:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the whole exercise by the IP above was meant to make a point, I appreciate the satire.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E clearly applies here. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite the awe some people feel about the President electors, they are in fact pretty normal every day people and in fact there is often an effort to make sure that they are ordinary to avoid someone significant or politically powerful from becoming an elector. For this reason, subject fails notability and is known for a single event. -O.R.^Comms 17:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. Bradv 18:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Faithless electors in the 2016 American Presidential election as per the suggestion at the previous AfD. This is history. BLP1E is not an argument to delete, it is an argument to merge. Same for BIO1E. Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, move without leaving a redirect to Esther John (elector), as the word "faithless", even if common, is a political pejorative. Unscintillating (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg Citizens Coalition[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - appears to just have sporadic local coverage —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. The scant coverage that exists only shows that the organization was formed and what its goals were. No coverage seems to exist showing that it actually did anything, never mind anything of note. The Winnipeg Free Press article cited to prove the Coalition was successful on one occasion doesn't actually mention the Coalition at all. nerdgoonrant (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:ORG, and particularly its WP:AUD restrictions, something like this would need more than purely local media coverage to qualify for an article. A local civic activist group whose only notable success is backing the winning city council candidate in one ward in one election, in a city where city councillors don't get an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing as city councillors, is not a strong enough notability claim to make this internationally notable, especially given that the source for Orlikow's victory doesn't mention this group at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pops We Love You[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Egghead06 (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pops, We Love You (A Tribute to Father), which is about the same song. I will try to improve the sourcing on the target article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:06, 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 after I speedytagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kylin Capital Partners[edit]

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

Non-notable. Can not find any secondary source. Mar11 (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. Nothing out there. reddogsix (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was previously deleted. Which had a slight different name Kylin capital partners. - Mar11 (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agrees with nom and the fact that someone was trying to game the system by changing the title as User:Mar11 pointed out. Xaxing (talk) 09:36, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50/50Innertainment[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Unable to find any secondary sources to support notability. The sources cited in the article are mostly primary (interviews). This source seems promotional or self-published. The company is mentioned here. Completely non-notable entity. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can not self publish articles on MTV.com or AXS.com http://www.mtv.com/artists/502f50innertainment/ or http://www.axs.com/colorado-hip-hop-artists-stryker-mft-of-50-50innertainment-become-co-s-112155 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny5000 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Exemplo347 (talk)
~~Keep - Meets GNG. Mentioned in Reputable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny5000 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johny5000: Can you please tell me which sources meet Wikipedia's Reliability guidelines? Also, can you please sign your posts using 4 tildes? Thanks. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am new here, just trying my best and thank you for the help. Here are the sources, You can not self publish articles on MTV.com or AXS.com http://www.mtv.com/artists/502f50innertainment/ or http://www.axs.com/colorado-hip-hop-artists-stryker-mft-of-50-50innertainment-become-co-s-112155 . These pop up online and you cannot become a contributor to the site which is owned by the companies.Johny5000 (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely CAN self-publish on the MTV Artists pages. To quote from the page itself: This site contains content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form. As for the article at AX.com, it only mentions the name of the company in passing - it's not an article about 50/50innertainment - Wikipedia requires Substantial Coverage in Independent Reliable Sources which currently do not exist for this company. That doesn't mean that there can't be an article about this company in the future - it just means that it's too soon. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

on MTV it is not possible to sign up for an account. When you say This site contains content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form, MTV's contributors seem to get the content themselves from what they see as factual, you cannot contribute it to them. AXS.com is a highly reputable source and owned by AEG , one of the largest Record Labels in the world. You can not become a contributor to their site, you must work for them personally. AXS.com article for 50/50innertainment shows proof of ownership for the Record Label ,shows proof of who 50/50innertainment have worked with including a highly reputable video they posted. Also since this Wiki was created in passing it would only be right to show 50/50innertainment in the past. Johny5000 (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple - you need to provide more sources. I'm not going round and round in circles with you. Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline requires, as I've already said, substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. If you are unable to locate them (and I've already spent 10 minutes looking without success) then that should speak for itself. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will do sir, in all do respect though There are other pages with less sources and less reputable sources that are still around, I have given you two examples of highly recognized sources and recognition by one of the biggest Record Labels in the world and are following Wikipedia guidelines for GNG "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Johny5000 (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And can you provide more sources, like I've already said, or can't you? Exemplo347 (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this site and trying my best sir, when you look up 50/50innertaiment there are over 70,000 Results when you use the omitted option. It is showing more links so will take time to go through all the pages with over 70,000+ Links to them. Johny5000 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you search for the subject of this article in the "News" section of Google you get zero results. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's odd because on Firefox I am getting 80,000 Results and Google Chrome over 70,000 Results when I look up 50/50innertainment Johny5000 (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very Odd Indeed Exemplo347 (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you clicked on just the news section in the searches which doesn't show all of the results and plus your Google says Google Uk, I am in America. When you search like that in specifics it doesn't show the impact that the Record Label has online and all of the SEO it provides. SEO means Search Engine Optimization, not all images and links are placed to the news searches of google because people look for a subject in it's fullest form when looking online. Also since you're not in America my searches might be different than yours, sorry I have a college degree in SEO so get into depth detail sometimes and seems like a different language to others. Johny5000 (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The news section is where reliable sources are generally found - incidentally I've found the same Zero results after trying from proxy servers located in 10 separate countries. Have a look at articles for other producers or music industry professionals and you'll see what I mean - they are backed up by sources that meet Wikipedia's Reliable Sources threshold. What I suggest, going forward, is that you look for sources that aren't self-created (not social media, vevo, instagram etc.) and attempt to improve the article. I've made my point here a few times over & I see no reason to keep on repeating myself as you're just bringing up the same two sources repeatedly. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked in searches for other artist in the news section and you only pull up about 00.001 of the results for them as well sir, plus looking up on a Different IP address does not always give you the omitted results.By doing this you are not giving the Record Label the full coverage for themselves only going off what you see. Besides their impact online you have to take into note how they have impacted their community and genre in real life.One thing to understand is that Google's knowledge graph doesn't pull up all the information at once and has to be formatted in which takes time, it could take up to a year or longer. Johny5000 (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOT in fact applies since it's a clear advertising and the accounts involved are all advertising, regardless of what could be said. SwisterTwister talk 18:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep when you say it's clear advertising that is what media outlets do, they advertise and distribute material they find as factual and Thisis50.com is a highly recognizable source for Hip Hop media online. User Exemplo above seems to be using different Ip addresses when looking at the internet and Wikipedia so it's hard to say what he is noticing since he is located in the UK and using different ip address to look up sites, as stated above. The User Johny 5000 has stated above reputable sources and the disputers are not giving clear consensus or proof of their findings, only opinions on how things should be found. I noticed this online so figured I would post it here, this company is owned by 50Cent and only people that work for this business can contribute works that they find factual. http://www.thisis50.com/profiles/blogs/50-50innertainment-bio-and-feature Thetempoglass (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources among the provided references, nothing better found. --Finngall ^talk 02:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep please show how these sources are unreliable and proof of how to sign up for the sites to publish your material yourself. I see no way of doing this while your on their sites. Listed on the 50/50innertainment page are some of the entertainment industry's top leaders listed in the links so I see them as reliable sources. The people marking this as delete are not giving enough consensus and proof , only their opinions on what is reliable. Thetempoglass (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate !vote struck — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional dreck. Subject isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes any of the notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top Young Indian CS 1.6 Players[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 which states, "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories. " This applies because it is a article about a insignificant cross-category. It also fails WP:GNG as there are no "sources" for this article. This article is also WP:PROMOTION because User:Cs lover international contributed greatly to this article which suggests promotion. KAP03 (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Too specific of a subset and unsourced. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and is obvious original research. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:00, 31 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) —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beetle Boy[edit]

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

Not notable - fails GNG Exemplo347 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page popped up on the new pages feed for the lack of referencing, and some Wikifying would go a long way. Passes #1 on WP:BKCRIT per these three reviews, [9], [10], [11], which should also help with GNG. Some of the links on the page also help with GNG, like this Guardian listing [12]. Yvarta (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. , but delete the article on te author. An author of a single book is not notable--it;'s beter to have the article on the book. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, with notable exceptions like Harper Lee. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (warning, a bit of humor first), GGGGRRRRR!!, nominator must have issues with beetles, maybe was the recipient of beetle pranks (big hairy spider in the bed, bugs in breakfast cereal etc.) when younger, may need a trouting or a beetling(?), anyhoo, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, book has had numerous reviews from both sides of the pond including The Guardian, School Library Journal, Booktrust, Booklist, Horn Book Guide, School Library Connection, Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, AudioFile, have updated article to reflect this. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of reliable sources. Shouldn't be deleted but needs cleanup. Missjastersgarden (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reception sections includes reliable sources. The article could use expansion. Dimadick (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sattar Bhagat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE: BEFORE did not produce demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage, and none of the explicit criteria of WP:NATHLETE appear to be met. —swpb^T 14:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has played first-class cricket and thus meets WP:NCRIC (a subsection of WP:NATHLETE). Sources are always more difficult to find the farther back you get from the internet era (and in non-English-speaking countries in general), but they would definitely exist. CricketArchive (used in the article) and ESPNcricinfo ([13]) are both tertiary sources that demonstrate the existence of those secondary sources. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - can people please stop doing this. To suggest that one former first-class cricketer is more or less notable than another is violation of WP:NPOV, and frankly disruptive. Please explain what makes you believe that the source quoted is not independent or is unreliable. "This article does not cite sources" is an outright lie. Bobo. 14:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the above comment is from the creator of this article. —swpb^T 14:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "This article does not cite sources" is also not something anyone said or came close to saying, so who's lying here? Independence and reliability are two of exactly three criteria explicitly stated in both WP:GNG and my nomination; the other, which you conveniently forgot, is significance of coverage. Two lines of stats confirming that, yes, this player existed, is not significant to me, no matter how independent and reliable it is. You can disagree with that assessment, but you're going to have a very bad time if you keep throwing false accusations. —swpb^T 13:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand entirely by what I said. Bobo . 17:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of the article still needs to meet the GNG. It may be assumed that, given enough time, sources could be found to make this subject meet the GNG, but that is simply an assumption not a black and white statement of fact. NCRIC is a subset of NATH but the FAQ at the top of NATH makes it clear that subjects still have to meet the GNG - and simply having made an appearance in a cricket match does not, by itself, mean that it is automatically met; instead there need to be in suitably in depth sources about the subject of the article. If I don't think an article has a chance of doing that then it is still absolutely legitimate to challenge it and to suggest that it be deleted. I rather get the impression that a number of editors are unaware of the FAQ at the top of the page that NCRIC is on and/or have never actually read it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - in this case I am unconvinced that suitable secondary, in depth sources would be available. The team that the chap played for only played first-class cricket in the one competition - and from the list of matches appear to have only played two matches during that season, only one of which we have the scorecard for. Given that state of affairs, and that Kalat then don't have a record on CI of playing any cricket between 69/70 and 90/91 I have significant doubts that suitable sources could, in this case, be found. I'd be quite happy to give it some time for someone to try and source some but, frankly, this is the sort of article that needs to be judged rather than simply created because we can/must. We don't have to have a completionist approach - that's why CI and CA are there. I would tend towards delete if I had to make a call on this now, but I would rather give those editors who wish to retain it a chance to find sources first. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:CRIN as the player has played at first-class level, the highest form of domestic cricket. These AfD's are very much a waste of time excerise, dozens of similar cricketers have been nominated before and all have been kept. It would be helpful if people consulted the community agreed guidelines about cricketers before nominating for deletion; after all, it's why such guidelines exist. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Momina Duraid[edit]

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

Horribly peacocky and it is hard to separate fact from fluff but does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the nom completely. Had tagged it, hoping that the article's creator would improve it, but no improvements have been made. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no justification for the extravagant claims in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 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 Deleted (G5) by WIdt. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayan 2[edit]

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

Unsourced and fails WP:NFILM. Google searches not finding anything concrete to establish theh existence of this film let alone notability. Various youtube and social media hits oing back several years but they seem to be speculating about a sequel rather than reporting its being made. noq (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails as per WP:NFF, as the film has not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography. Although there is some chatter regarding the film yet it is probably too soon ( WP:CRYSTAL ). vivek7de--tAlK 14:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wait until it's at least started production before creating Spiderone 14:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I loved the original, nothing concrete has started on the second part. Fails WP:FILM. Jupitus Smart 09:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as it was created by a sock of a blocked user, User:GBA Google Boys Arimalam GBA, whose many socks specialise in creating hoax articles about film related subjects. --bonadea contributions talk 10:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flusha[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Prisencolin (creator) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD), unless we count the fact that he added two ref; neither of which however count as any in-depth coverage, they are just mentions in passing from trade journals/portals covering e-sports. Pinging users who mentioned this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jw (Counter-Strike player): @AlessandroTiandelli333 and Sergecross73: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable esports player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable esports player. Virtually no content present to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 02:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ESPN, Yahoo, Daily Dot, Aftonbladet etc don't amount to significant coverage.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:55, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Divyanshu Baranwal[edit]

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

No independent sources to verify the notability of the subject. The only sources are written by the subject or his company. WWGB (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely sourced to the website of the non-notable foundation he formed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and looks like an autobiography based on its content and also its creator. I also could not find any reliable sources at all. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiasa Ray[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. I failed to find any independent reliable source to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should also be noted that same user is creating other promotional pages. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 14:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources are user generated. No evidence of third party notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:41, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve McCarthy[edit]

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

I couldn't verify notability. Does not seem to have had starring roles. Has been tagged for notability for eight and a half years now - hopefully we can finally resolve it one wy or the other. Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The links are dead but even more there is no indication of significant roles in any notable productions. Her TV role might just eke by that threshold, but just barely, and it is one role when we would need multiple.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I suspect there will be an article here one day but at the moment undernotable and TOOSOON. It seems odd that there are not some better references available. I will look again if I get the time. Aoziwe (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn. John from Idegon (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Admiral Peary Vocational-Technical School[edit]

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

Not a diploma granting institution, but a shared voc - tech education center for several school districts. Fails WP:ORG, and since it does not qualify for a school exception should be deleted John from Idegon (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why doesn't it qualify for a school exception? This is a high school and that is covered by WP:SCHOOL. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a public secondary school that serves multiple school districts. There's no place to merge this to, as it's a standalone school. Given the availability of sources about the school, its program, development and history, this is a keeper. Alansohn (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Although this school meets GNG, it doesn't meet ORG. However, I'm still going to withdraw this in light of Alansohn's comments. Most shared tech-voc centers such as this operate under the auspices of a school district or an intermediate school district. This one appears to be a joint venture created by the schools and districts involved. That's unique. Alan, as you are on the East coast, is there any way you could try to add some historical context to the origin of this school? Sir Joseph, the school exemption only applies to diploma granting institutions. The kids that go here graduate from their home school with a tech-voc diploma, not from here. The tech-voc center is a common model for tech education, but the kids do split days here and at their home schools. I'll leave a more detailed explanation on your talk. John from Idegon (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- John from Idegon, I'll research, but it's not exactly that close. The article would clearly benefit from added sourcing. Alansohn (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Alan. The bad thing about living where I do is the book is always checked out of the library. John from Idegon (talk) 01:25, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19th Generation[edit]

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

I cannot find any indication that this band meets Notability criteria at WP:MUSIC. Nearly all of the original "references" were really just Wikilinks. Having eliminated those, only two references were left, neither of which mentions the subject at all - nor do they mention the statements they are linked to. A Google search (both general and News) failed to find any reliable sources. The bulk of the article is just taken up with what some band members did after leaving the band - which is not enough to support this article's existence. Gronk Oz (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything at all to indicate any notability. Half the article is not about the band. Some of the non band material might actually be notable, but for a completely different article. Aoziwe (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as no evidence of notability found or claimed. There are many passing mentions to Russell Hitchcock singing in a band called 19th Generation before Air Supply (an unsourced factoid possibly taken from his Wikipedia article!), but if the published record says no more than such, this may just as well be a failed local band with a latterly famous member. If this band was only significant in the context of Hitchcock's biography, it might plausibly redirect. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:40, 31 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 03:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akshar Pathak[edit]

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

Procedural nomination for IP user requested here [14] on grounds that this is a promotional article, and that they will further elaborate at this discussion page. I am neutral as to the outcome of this discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TonyBallioni --182.75.175.230 (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it, my reasons - This article is a self promotional article. The subject is not a known person to any kind of masses. He doesn't seem to fulfil criterion mentioned at WP:ARTIST. He is a graphic designer who works at a company. All he has is a funny twitter account.

Debunking article claims :

1. "creates posters of Bollywood". I searched, seems all he has is a blog where he mimics popular Bollywood movie posters.

2. "featured in over 90 magazines and newspapers." I could find only like 20 appearances some of which are blogs. Plus it is not a criterion of being worthy to be on Wikipedia.

3. "He has earlier worked with Happily Unmarried, Comic Con India, and DSYN. He spent close to three years at Zomato, then took a short break during which he worked with All India Bakchod as a Social Media Manager. He is back at Zomato as of November 2015." - Those were his "jobs".

4. "Minimal Bollywood Posters is Akshar's brainchild " See the use of word "brainchild"

5. "His posters have caught the eye of Facebook users around the World since it became viral through Social Networking Forums such as Facebook and Twitter." Yes its just a small meme. Which is unknown to mass majority. Plus where is the reference for this line?

The user who had created this article has only two articles in his/her contribution list Special:Contributions/Shreiyachow . S/he has made only five edits till date. I suspect s/he wrote it as a promotion.--182.75.175.230 (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "widely recognised in the digital world"? Not until we add reblogging a tumblr post, or retweeting as a notability criterion to WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG Mduvekot (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable graphic artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Non notable graphical artist.Article is promotional in nature.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 14:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relief Crew' members[edit]

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

Copied directly from Aircrew, not independently notable. Mike1901 (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if sourced and expanded it would not be much more than a dictionary definition. No need for a stand-alone article on this subject. - Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to the appropriate section in aircrew. There's not enough for a separate article and better covered in aircrew article. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into aircrew. Simply not enough material to warrant a stand alone article. Samf4u (talk) 14:42, 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 redirect to Saved by the Light. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dannion Brinkley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has not improved since the last nomination which barely squeaked by. We have an article for the best-selling book they wrote, Saved by the Light. This article is full of unsourced content, or content sourced to non-independent or WP:SPS and is basically promotional, not encyclopedic. Searched out several pages in google and just found in-bubble, poor-quality discussion. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saved by the Light.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:45, 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 speedy delete. self-written spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Amarjit Bakshi[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Autobiography ~~without any sources. --逆襲的天邪鬼 (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)~~--逆襲的天邪鬼 (talk) 06:45, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lyfe Crisis[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The references in the article fail to establish that notability in general or that specific to musicians has been met. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources necessary to meet WP:GNG, and they certainly don't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus here is to keep but with WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries, wineries, and distilleries in Manitoba[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 which states "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." This applies because the article is a simple listing with no context. KAP03 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that this article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY #1 because it covers loosely related topics (namely breweries, wineries, and distilleries in Manitoba which are unrelated). The article also fails WP:CSC because not every entry meets the notability criteria or every entry on the fails the notability criteria. The list is also not a complete list of every item that is a member of this group. The list also fails WP:LISTNAME because list is too broad. KAP03^Talk 22:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator continues to improve in wording his deletion arguments since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of online real estate databases -- an area in which he now seems to be focused: deleting lists. Sometimes with good cause. But my response here remains much the same as online real estate databases: this is not without context information. The context here is perfectly clear, even to the point of supplying us with cities where the companies are based and the type of drink produced. This doesn't exactly mirror an existing category, far as I know, in that it groups makers of wine, beer and spirit together, but WP:CLN -- which the nominator has hopefully acquainted himself with by now -- still applies, I think. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect the nom is a newbie here and has been advised to look for other avenues to sharpen their editing skills. Deletion nominations can cause havoc with editor retention, and bad nominations are a waste of the community's time. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Keep the nom should refrain from bringing any more lists to AfD for the time being. Lepricavark (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. There may be stronger reasons for deleting this, such as perhaps the question of whether we need lists that combine three distinct and only tangentially related types of facility into one common list, but this deletion rationale ain't cutting it: lists are not automatically deemed to run afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY just because they happen to be lists. No prejudice against renomination if somebody feels strongly enough about it to formulate a compelling deletion rationale, but what's been offered here is not the reason why this might conceivably be deletable. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationales of Shawn in Montreal and Bearcat herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most discussed YouTube videos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per the last deletion nomination, the article lacks the notability required to create a separate page, unlike List of most liked YouTube videos and List of most disliked YouTube videos. Although the page contains more sources than the last attempt at creating the page, all of the reliable sources do not discuss the most discussed YouTube videos, instead talking about the history of commenting on YouTube. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - arbitrary and subjective measurement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. While research on YouTube comments and its culture is certainly a topic of interest, a list of which videos have the most comments is not. 400,000 people saying "I like it" or "WORST SONG EVARRR" does not mean it is notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject of the article is very interesting, though even the lead section which describes the history of Youtube commenting is riddled with original research (the second paragraph, for instance, uses Reddit, Youtube, and Imgur as sources). But, more importantly, the list itself is entirely original research that doesn't really have a place on Wikipedia. There exists no notable interest for "the video with the most discussion happening on it" or something of that ilk. This might be of interest for a Youtube fan-wiki, but not on Wikipedia, even just per general notability guidelines. ~Mable (chat) 13:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm afraid Maplestrip has it right. The subject of the list itself (what videos have had the most discussion) has not received the requisite coverage in reliable sources to be notable, and this is represented by the reliance on original research (citing videos themselves, which is drawing a conclusion that the sources themselves do not explicitly state). I would recommend merging what material in the lead is reliably sourced into Google+#Commenting on YouTube. It is interesting, but it doesn't belong as a standalone article in this encyclopedia at this time. Mz7 (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given above and in the first AfD: arbitrary, even unreliable (I place no stock in the number of comments being reliable). Drmies (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Exactly the same reasoning as last time. The fatal flaw with the article is still present; it's still an (almost) completely arbitrary and non-notable measurement (not least because of the vast amount of spam comments). Thegreatluigi (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I would argue that the list is, in fact, notable and not at all an arbitrary measurement. Between 2005 and 2012, YouTube included an honors section and up-to-date charts for videos that received notable rankings in categories such as the most viewed, liked, favorited, or discussed videos of the day/week/month/all-time. Yes, the number of comments on a video was one of the categories that YouTube kept track of. YouTube included a full chart comprised of videos in the "Most Discussed" category, as can be seen in these archived pages from 2012, 2011, 2007, and 2006, just to list a few. If the measurement of comments was non-notable or arbitrary, YouTube wouldn't have made and maintained a chart for it for 8 years. Some examples of how the Most Discussed Videos has been a topic of interest in the past include: these two books about YouTube video marketing, published in 2009, which frequently refer to the "Most Discussed" list in their findings; at the end of 2010, YouTube Trends published a list of most discussed videos of the year; in 2012, the website "News & Guides" published a list of most discussed videos of all time; in 2014, Time published a list of most popular videos of the year, stating: “The top 10 wasn’t determined by view count alone, but rather by a more nebulous formula that includes "views, shares, comments, likes and more," according to YouTube.” This is a clear indication that the number of comments on a video is important and is taken into consideration when determining popularity. Videos that spark the most discussion, for whatever reason, should have their own article just like the most liked, disliked, and viewed videos do. As for reliability, the source for this article is the same as the sources for those three articles. In response to Maplestrip's comment: “There exists no notable interest for "the video with the most discussion happening on it" or something of that ilk. This might be of interest for a Youtube fan-wiki, but not on Wikipedia”, the same could be said about a large portion of Wikipedia articles as well. Many articles are so specific that they only appeal to a very small fraction of users, yet they remain on Wikipedia because the information is useful to the few it applies to. Given the additional details I've provided, I believe this article should not be deleted. --MattStan10 (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although your analysis is lengthy, it is very flawed. First, YouTube doesn't have any honors for the "Most Discussed Videos" anymore. Second, the fact that two books mention a "most discussed" section doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article, especially when there are entire articles that talk about List of most liked YouTube videos [15] and List of most disliked YouTube videos [16]; for "Most discussed YouTube videos", only three articles on Google News. Third, the websites that you linked regarding "The Most Commented YouTube Videos" are not notable (such as "News and Guides", which hasn't posted an article since 2013, and "Youtube Trends", which is a Blog.) Fourth, although Time Magazine is a great source, the fact the article vaguely mentioned the comments of a video doesn't give the topic any notability. In a single sentence, there are no notable sources that provide a list of the "most discussed YouTube videos". Plus, you recreated this article even though it was previously deleted. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that YouTube got rid of the honors feature but that doesn't diminish the fact that they had it for 8 years and maintained up-to-date charts on the most discussed videos until the end of 2012. If this article was created when YouTube still had the charts, would it still be deleted, despite the fact that YouTube itself felt it was significant enough to keep track of? Also, the YouTube Trends page that I linked to was created and is operated by YouTube, so I would consider it to be a notable source. When I created the article in October I had no idea it was previously made and deleted. I just felt there should've been an article for the most discussed videos since there was one for every other major YouTube category. I figured it was a notable enough topic since YouTube used to provide charts about it for years, and I figured the source was reliable enough since similar sources have been used for other similar articles. --MattStan10 (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's like you read the first part of my argument and skimmed through the rest. First, this category is simply not notable because there are not any reliable sources that cover this topic. Also, the fact that YouTube had this topic for eight years does not make it notable. You questioned "If this article was created when YouTube still had the charts, would it still be deleted, despite the fact that YouTube itself felt it was significant enough to keep track of?" The answer is yes because there are no reliable secondary sources that cover this list. Second, I had made the mistake of calling YouTube Trends simply as "a Blog". What I meant to say is that it is a Blog run by the official site. Citing this source would violate WP:OR because you would cite YouTube itself. I am aware in all of the YouTube related lists cite directly to the YouTube videos, but the information in the lead paragraph in those articles contain sources from good secondary sources. Furthermore, even if we could cite this, this list originated from 2010; there are no similar lists from this current year. Finally, you said when you created this article in October, you had no idea that it was deleted. That is a lie, because Wikipedia would notify that the article in question had been deleted prior to creating the article, as seen in this image. In conclusion, my point still stands that measuring YouTube comments is not a notable metric, even back then when YouTube itself used to measure it. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right. I initially considered the former YouTube Charts [17] and YouTube Trends Blog [18] to be notable sources, but after reading WP:GNG I can understand the reasoning for why the topic may not be notable enough to warrant a stand-alone list. Maybe if the topic receives significant coverage from reliable sources in the future, it may be worthy of its own article, but not at this time. --MattStan10 (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows what may happen in the following years :) ~Mable (chat) 21:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that reliable sources would discuss about the "Most Discussed YouTube videos", especially when none was given when YouTube had the category. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anything is possible. The Guinness World Records includes records for the most comments on a Weibo post [19] and the most comments on a Facebook item [20] so it's possible that one day they (or other sources) could discuss the most comments on YouTube videos. --MattStan10 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The records set by Guinness World Records deal only with the top comment of a particular post, and not an entire list of posts (as the article tries to present). Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the same as I've said in my first post - will look forward to the list of most trolled Youtube videos in the near future. Donnie Park (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling is not quantifiable, even if it is much more reported upon. This seems like a fallacy of some sort ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 13:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a wildly subjective piece of fancruft that is ill-defined to be measured. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 01:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne M. Keller[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of mayors of Wasilla is out of proportion to the importance of the job. We all know why this is, because a certain famous person once occupied the role. Notability is not inherited however and a close read reveals that much of what is in the sources is more related to what she thinks of Palin than anything to do with her as a person and a mayor of a suburb. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The most common argument in the first three nominations is that the article should be expanded. It is really difficult do do that, especially when the only sources she has been in date from 2008 (Link to alternate search), all of which have to do with her thoughts regarding Sarah Palin per the nominator. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a sense of scale, the local government of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, of which Wasilla is a just a tiny portion, has no article, and neither do any of the leaders of the Borough Assembly, a body governing an area of nearly 25,000 square miles and containing nearly 90,000 people. This is not because nobody has gotten around to it yet, it's becaue local government people are generally not particularly notable and an assosciation by simply occupying the same office as someone who went on to bigger things does not confer notability on every future holder of that post. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem I see is not so much a lack of notability as a lack of "popularity", which becomes all too obvious when participants in this AFD have made the discussion one about Sarah Palin, while at the same time barely or not even acknowledging Keller's existence. For another sense of scale, the Mat-Su Borough is the second most populous municipality in Alaska per 2015 estimates. It does not have a strong mayor, but the holder of that office has other possible claims to notability, primarily from competing in the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race. What's really out of proportion is the weight we've given to the office of mayor of Juneau, also not a strong mayor, especially since the coverage of the untimely death of the last regularly-elected holder of that office epitomized "slow news day reporting". The obsession certain editors have had with that office boils down to the trivia-like aspect of it being the mayor of a state capital, nothing more. We have an editor living in Juneau who has shown a fondness for cherry-picking data to claim that Juneau is Alaska's second-largest community. As a "unified municipality", the Census Bureau reports a single population figure (31,275 in the 2010 Census) for the central city, all of its suburbs and thousands of square miles of wilderness. Fairbanks, which is really Alaska's second-largest community, reports a similar population figure within corporate limits that are 1/100th the size, while over twice as many other people live in the borough outside city limits. There's a point to all this. The claim that Wasilla is "a place with a population of just 8K" is highly misleading and that figure is being manipulated for approximately the same reason as I outline above. The Census Bureau's FactFinder site reports a population of 33,742 for the eight census tracts containing portions of or directly abutting Wasilla city limits. It also reports a population of 52,168 for the 99654 ZIP Code area. Wasilla does have a strong mayor, as one of the above-listed Google hits points out, and is a retail hub serving a population base approaching or into the six digits, so this office is a lot more important than it may appear on the surface. As we are in no way consistent in the manner in which we define communities on the encyclopedia, except perhaps to endlessly regurgitate certain census data, a statement such as "a place with a population of just 8K" can only be used to gain unfair advantage in an argument. We already have the POV-ish problem of every piece of big-city minutiae being treated as inherently notable while other places are covered as content for content's sake, belittling local knowledge and sources even when they provide useful information, in this case favoring the New York Timeses and Washington Posts of the world showing up and saying nothing important about Wasilla. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is because a former holder of the office became notable (I think it was her immediate predecessor) and local media coverage of local events. This is just not enough to justify an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that one former mayor of Wasilla went on to become notable for other reasons beyond the mayoralty does not, in and of itself, create an automatic inclusion freebie for all of her predecessors or successors — each mayor of Wasilla still has to clear WP:NPOL completely on his or her own steam, because a place with a population of just 8K does not hand its mayors an automatic pass. Third discussion also hinged far too strongly on the flawed notion that the second discussion, six years earlier, automatically settled things for all time despite the total lack of substantive improvement or the fact that consensus can change. There's just no substance here to warrant an article, however; the only "nationalized" coverage here is cursory coverage of her endorsement of her much more famous predecessor's campaign for national office — but endorsing a candidate in another election is not a notability claim in and of itself either. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The sentiment I saw expressed throughout the previous AFDs was that the community should learn to respect the context of the local area. It's rather sad to see that in the case of a community which is celebrating its centennial this year, Wikipedians are still content to forever tread water on one tiny blip of national media attention from eight years ago. It almost begs for the creation of WP:OTHERSOURCESEXIST. Speaking of which, I discounted the Google results Yoshiman referred to above, as they merely parrot the same old Palin worship. Those stories all point out that Keller was the incumbent mayor who succeeded Palin, but I'm not seeing one mention of how she was weeks away from leaving office and whether this was due to her being term-limited or due to the contentious relationship she had with the city council. A NewsBank/NewsLibrary search proved more illuminating. Still, I'm going to say delete based on that. While coverage did continue strong after she left office, including hints of continued national media coverage, there's very little after early summer 2009. Most of it had to do with the city council asking her to resign and with a land use dispute which turned personal, both of which could be viewed as BLP problems. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Shifts[edit]

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

unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After a brief search, I haven't found any secondary sources pertaining to the subject in question. This deletion is long overdue. ProjectHorizons (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 03:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references at all, let alone any authoritative references. No notability shown.--Rpclod (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The album lacks rankings or reviews, unlike his later album New Clouds. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, no references available, no problem with some words added to album creator page. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schizofonics[edit]

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

Cannot find any secondary sources on the DJs Schizofonics (there is a California band with the same name). All the sources in article are social media. Does not meet notability requirement for bands Rogermx (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources or significant coverage and no help from WP:NMUSIC. WP:FACEBOOKBAND appears closest match. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 02:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - MySpace and YouTube sites are not authoritative references.--Rpclod (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Spinnin' Records. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source (record label)[edit]

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

No indication of notability, sources are all WP:PRIMARY. Redirect to Spinnin' Music. Karst (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the relevant page. - TheMagnificentist 06:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's definitely notable and the sources aren't primary (Beatport for example isn't a Source asset). If sourcing needs to be further expanded then it's better to use the appropriate tag at the top of the page. Also, there are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google. 141.138.146.132 (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm staying out of this a little bit since I got involved with the creator's unblock request, but I just want to point out that the above user provides no proof of notability. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 02:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into Spinnin' Records. No authoritative references are provided and nothing shows notability on its own.--Rpclod (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Author Solutions. While there isn't enough in-depth coverage to show that this company passes notability criteria, completely deleting is not called for either, if there is a suitable target, which in this case there is. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partridge Publishing[edit]

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

A7 tag was removed by Adam9007 on the basis that this is a division of a notable company. Notability, however, is not inherited, and there's no indication that this company is notable. No secondary source coverage, no other signs of notability. agtx 22:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Author Solutions. Not notable. Adam9007 (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Topic is notable for India as Partridge is their Indian arm and among the few self-publishing brands in India. Two citations have been added both informative and critical Jangvijay (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 02:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into Author Solutions. No authoritative references are provided and nothing shows notability on its own.--Rpclod (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and no need to redirect. There are literally no reliable sources about the publishing house. There are many self publishing houses in the world and most of them are not notable. This one is no different. I don't see a need to leave a redirect hanging behind at all. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Author Solutions. No notability for a stand-alone article.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 14:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Steppenwolf band members[edit]

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

Page has no independent references, is the subject of a huge off wiki battle and can just as easily be covered in the article on the band. Delete as an unneeded fork. John from Idegon (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not even an article or a link, just a graphic. Does not warrant separate article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and relocate to Steppenwolf article. Why this would be considered appropriate for it's own entry is beyond me. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but note that Steppenwolf (band)#Band members does not list the members of the original lineup, possibly because of the edit war that's been going on? That section needs to be fixed; but it shouldn't hold up deleting this article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:28, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Longworth Sturm[edit]

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

Subject isn't really noted for anything meaningful that doesn't have to do with being Alice Roosevelt Longworth's daughter. Notability isn't inherited, and family affiliations alone aren't enough to warrant a separate article. She therefore fails WP:Notability (people). Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her mother seems to have been notable, she was not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited, searches on this individual, with or without the middle name, produced little result. Definitely not enough to exceed the bar for WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a hoax or at best, a very non-notable film. Full disclosure, I PRODed the prior incarnation of the article, but I feel that deletion here is a certainty. I also note that it was created by a different account, which gives off the impression that there is likely sockpuppetry at play here as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Beach (2015 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM or is a hoax. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killagators created by same user. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only existence of the film is a YouTube video blocked by Universal Music Group. Even without watching it, you can tell off the bat that the person who created the article wanted to self-promote his film on the site, violating WP:COI Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - Imagine a world where we can clarify in A7 that videos uploaded only to YouTube explicitly count as web content, and not as a "short film".

Seriously though, the source really needs to be added to Wikipedia guidelines somewhere as the worst possible example of a reliable source that is physically possible. You can't make this up:

This databse is for extremely obscure slasher films most people have never heard of. It only contains slasher films which barely have any traces of existing; so few, in fact, that they do not even qualify for most movie databases

...And the MSPaint graphics...don't get me started. TimothyJosephWood 16:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment There are far worst sources out there. Of Pandas and People as a source for biology, The Passing of the Great Race as a source on history and ethics, Ages in Chaos as a source on the history of Ancient Egypt, The Greek Myths as a source on Greek prehistory, etc. Why single out a database on obscure topics? Dimadick (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that this film even exists. Dimadick (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:SELFPROMOTION and WP:N. The author also seems to have a habit of making non-constructive edits and it is thus hard to believe that this ~~edit~~article was made in good faith. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 17:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No film with this title released in 2015 actually exists. The article is a recreation of a previously prodded and deleted article. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - A hoax. Daß Wölf 05:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domenic Di Rosa (actor)[edit]

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

WP:PROD for unsourced WP:BLP removed by creator. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, let alone any that suggest notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no reliable source references & Big Wolf on Campus only lists this actor as 'minor cast'. Canuckle (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Source searches are not providing coverage to qualify an article; does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Annabelle Huggins. Consensus was for redirect. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Ablaza[edit]

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

Almost reverse duplicate of Annabelle Huggins without adding additional detail. Could all be merged into Annabelle Huggins without bother. Annabelle Huggins article has not reference since created in 2009 but a merge with some refs would make for a basic but functionality complete article. scope_creep (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as {{R to related topic}} to Annabelle Huggins where I've added a few references. — Sam Sailor 00:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was quick. scope_creep (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Annabelle Huggins, although I would rather not give someone known solely as a rapist any coverage.--Rpclod (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. notable only in the context of this crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 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 03:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. presidential relatives[edit]

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

This is nothing but listcruft. It was previously kept mainly because "it's interesting", which really isn't a good reason to maintain articles per WP:INTERESTING. Except for perhaps being a First Lady or maybe a child who also became President, being related to a President isn't exactly on its own a noteworthy trait to begin with, and Wikipedia isn't supposed to have excessive listings per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. For the First Ladies, there is already List of First Ladies of the United States. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jesus. 614 mentions of "distant cousin". This may actually be the most indiscriminate list ever. It could in theory include literally every biography on the entire encyclopedia. I mean...honestly, J. P. Morgan as distant cousin by marriage of Obama? That JP Morgan? ... The one who died in 1913? TimothyJosephWood 18:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...honestly...I don't...I can't... Robert E. Lee as a distant cousin to Obama? Is this a joke? TimothyJosephWood 18:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, they are distantly related, although it might not be notable to state. https://famouskin.com/famous-kin-chart.php?name=4640+robert+e+lee&kin=10012+barack+obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:5C11:9246:32CB:10D7 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as absurd, unlimited list. We are, after all, ultimately all "distant cousins" of one another.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable and indiscriminate; see WP:IINFO Spiderone 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also see this, so we should add the Fuhrer to the list of relatives, hey? - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If a president is sourceable as a direct descendant of someone else notable, then that's a noteworthy fact, as it is if notable people are closely related to each other. Being distant cousins who never actually had any personal contact with each other, however, is just indiscriminate WP:TRIVIA with no encyclopedic value, because as noted above if genealogy records existed far enough back in history we would all eventually be related to each other. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Óttar Magnús Karlsson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As with the previous discussion, he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no change in circumstances from the first AfD, still fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy delete per G4, assuming the article content is mostly unchanged. TimothyJosephWood 14:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 17:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 17:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 17:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in a Tier-1 international match or in a fully-professional league. Insufficient significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 17:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Coulter[edit]

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

Mortagage broker who does not appear to have notability outside of a small Canadian city. Google searches find little except some reporting about the collapse of his business and subsequent fallout (and even then, there is very little). This is another biography article created by User:Ottawahitech who does not seem to appreciate the amount of work his poorly sourced and badly paraphrased stubs make for other editors. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local level mortagage broker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ottawahitech has a longstanding pattern of creating articles which single-source the fact that the topic exists, while completely failing to actually substantiate any actual evidence of encyclopedic notability beyond "this topic can be sourced as existing". (As I've pointed out before, however, I can be reliably sourced as existing, and so can the woman who lives a mile down the road from my parents who woke up one morning to find a pig in her front yard — so she and I would both have Wikipedia articles if "reliable sources attest that this person exists" were all it took to satisfy WP:GNG and the context in which that coverage was being given didn't actually have to pass any standards of significance.) In this particular instance, I find it especially fascinating — as written, this article just hagiographies the positive side of his work and portrays him as an unqualified success, but on a ProQuest search what I found is that the strongest case for inclusion would be that his mortgage brokership "empire" collapsed in a 1989 bankruptcy filing. I'm not, however, finding evidence that the collapse had anything more than purely local effects, so I consider it a purely local WP:BLP1E that's not worth actually upgrading with the real basis for notability — his significance does not extend far enough beyond the purely local to justify us violating his personal financial privacy rights by pulling his company's collapse out of the newspaper archives and into one of the most widely read websites on the entire planet. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.asme.org/about-asme/participate/honors-awards/literature-awards/freeman-scholar-award

[2] ttps://www.asme.org/about-asme/get-involved/honors-awards/achievement-awards/fluids-engineering-award

[3] ttps://www.google.ch/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=ininventor:%2522Promode+R.+Bandyopadhyay%2522#hl=en&tbm=pts&q=Promode+R.+Bandyopadhyay

[4] ttps://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=tac3UOQAAAAJ&citation_for_view=tac3UOQAAAAJ:u5HHmVD_uO8C

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]