Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 April 8 April >

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. MBisanz talk 01:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Róbert Jano[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that there is No evidence that this individual meets WP:GNG or has played in a professional football league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per WP:FPL only the top division in Slovakia is deemed fully professional. As such, this player needs to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://sfz.futbalnet.sk/sutaz/1302/statistiky/
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen McGuire[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Therainbowsend (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Sources are consistently unreliable and fails GNG and NACTOR. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 01:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Saw a link to this page (not directly to the RFD) on Faecbook so I'm not voting, but I want to comment that WP:GNGACTOR is an essay, not a policy, however, even that clarifies that subject specific criteria more likely apply here. In this case that would be WP:ENT's "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." or WP:ARTIST. The question that may be appropriate then is how many is enough. To me, three = multiple. IMDB Link Kopf1988 (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


MissyGraham (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC) I have updated the page to adhere to Wikipedia's formatting standards and included multiple sources to confirm the information on this page. I used Justin Briner and Sarah Wiedenheft's pages as examples, both which seem to pass Wikipedia's standards. I believe this person to be a notable person, not just for acting, but also for their contribution in script writing and ADR directing, as well as being a published author in the comics and art industry.[reply]

  • Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON or Move to draft
  • Assassination Classroom (TV) as Hinano Kurahashi - supporting
  • Castle Town Dandelion (TV) as Karen Ayugase - supporting
  • ēlDLIVE (TV) as Dolugh - main
  • Fuuka (TV) as Chitose Haruna - supporting
  • Keijo!!!!!!!! (TV) as Hanabi Kawai - supporting
  • Mikagura School Suite (TV) as Yuriko - supporting
  • Prison School (TV) as Chiyo Kurihara - main
  • ReLIFE (TV) as An Onoya - main
  • Sky Wizards Academy (TV) as Beach - supporting
  • Yuri!!! on Ice (TV) as Loop - supporting
So nothing I see on ANN that shows she has a lead role that carries a program to meet WP:ENT
Her anime convention appearances are mostly local to Texas. There are a few that are a litlte further out but just to NerdaCon in Columbus, GA. and one visit to KuroNekoCon in Spokane, WA [1]. She has gotten on to several projects as a ADR Script writer so that might be promising. Can you find some news articles that talk about her and not just a passing mention or cast/convention announcement? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think a real Otaku type would probably know better on whether or not those roles are supporting, but I do recognize Chiyo from Prison School as the main love interest, and I would call that a significant role. Kopf1988 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dolugh and An Onoya are both listed as "Main" characters on MyAnimeList. [[2]] Anime News Networks even says "Morgan Berry and Kristen McGuire star" in this article. [[3]] I know that animecons.com is not reliably updated and often sports outdated bios and even conventions, as there are several VAs who go to conventions that are not listed. For instance she has also been to Con Alt Delete in Chicago, Tokyo in Tulsa in Oklahoma, and GlitchCon in Arkansas, which are all cons outside of Texas. Hanabi Kawai and Chiyo Kurihara may be listed as "support" characters, but they are both integral characters who act as revolving plot devices in their respective shows. I don't think it's fair to say this actress is not notable just because these characters are not leads. They are significant parts regardless. I also found an article regarding not just her voice acting but also her drawing: [[4]] As well as several pod-cast interviews such as this one: [[5]] She has also posted about being an ADR Director at FUNimation. She is consistently booking larger roles every season. You may feel that she is a not notable actress right now, but she is definitely up and coming. Also upon reviewing the Wikipedia Notability requirements, it says the following:

Entertainers Shortcuts: WP:ENT WP:ENTERTAINER WP:NACTOR WP:NMODEL Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.

It doesn't actually say anything about having to have a lead role. It just says significant. If a character is in more than half the series, I would say that is significant. IE - Hinano Kurhashi from Assassination Classroom is in practically every episode of a 50+ episode series. Dolugh is in every episode of elDlive and is the driving force behind Chuta's super powers. An Onoya is part of the ReLIFE program and is in charge of making sure the lead stays on track with his program. What exactly does Wikipedia constitute as a significant role? MissyGraham (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Dolugh ēlDLIVE An Onoya / ReLife and Chiyo / Prison School to main. Can you write into her biography about these roles and support this with reviews from secondary sources? That would help show she is getting significant roles. Also the English dubs should be notable; have any of the titles she is a main in made it onto television networks or services such as Hulu/Netflix or is it all just on the very specialized Funimation broadcast dubs? Arlington library writeup is promising. It's still kind of local but we need more sources that detail her career like that. I suggest the article be developed in Draft as a bare filmography supported halfway with cast announcements and the other half with self-pub / tweets isn't helping anyone for notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Otakus would know, but how would the general Wikipedia reader know that if it isn't described? (and please do not bold the roles in the filmography) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not seeing sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Importantly, none of the discussion about what's considered lead/significant roles matters if there's no significant coverage. WP:NACTOR is one of several more specific criteria that indicate when a subject is probably notable. It's not automatic, because we still need significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject on which to base the actual article. We're not imdb, so a list of credits and basic biographical information isn't sufficient for the kind of article we want. In other words, if others find reliable sources independent of the subject that constitute significant coverage, we can say the subject is notable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the note of significant sources, I'd like to point out that there are pages which have not been targeted for deletion which have the same if not fewer sources. I.E. Sarah Wiedenheft. The standards do not seem to be universal. All of Sarah's sources come from the same sources I used, I know because I used Sarah's page as a template for making Kristen's. Upon looking on what counts as a reliable source I found the following from the WP:GNG page: ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." If sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, then Funimation's anime (with English cast credits) as well as their cast announcements should count as a sufficient source. Surely if the company who licensed the product and wrote an official blog post announcing the cast, that should be considered reliable? AngusWoof suggests the shows may be more notable if they weren't limited to Funimation's streaming website, however once again I'd like to point out that Sarah's page does not include any shows which have existed outside of DVD or Funimation's streaming site. Also to be noted that most of these shows are or will be available for purchase on DVD. So it's not limited to strictly online viewing. Upon further research I found that the game "88 Heroes", which Kristen provided voices in, is actually a console game which can be purchased on the PS4, which should help the notability factor that AngusWoof has requested. I will edit the page and make the changes you requested, but I would like to point out that it seems like the requirements change from voice actor to voice actor, which can be rather confusing. MissyGraham (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MissyGraham: What you're expressing is a common and valid frustration (common enough that there's a term for it, albeit somewhat dismissive: an "other stuff exists" argument). It basically comes down to Wikipedia being a volunteer-run project. Ultimately, a volunteer familiar with the guidelines needs to come across the page and apply the policy/guideline in order for it to be applied. If you've come across another article that doesn't meet notability criteria, you could tag it for deletion yourself, or eventually (possibly years later) someone else will (or perhaps by then the subject will be notable). The standards are universal, but there aren't enough volunteers to apply them with perfect consistency. FWIW I've not looked at the other article at this point. If sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, then Funimation's anime (with English cast credits) - This conflicts with another part of the same page which explains that the sources should be independent of the subject. Primary sources can be used for some purposes (list to verify that a person was in a certain movie), but doesn't contribute to notability because notability is based on what people who have nothing to do with the subject say about her. (As an aside, for most purposes other than verifying basic data, secondary sources are preferred. We want to know what a professional critic thinks about a movie, for example, more than we want to know what the movie studio says about its own movie.) In other words, they need to be reliable and independent of the subject. Sorry this is so confusing -- the deletion process on Wikipedia can be messy. When it comes down to it, the best thing to do is just to link to books, articles, magazines, journals, newspapers, etc. in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and provide something like "significant coverage". People who opine here will, ideally, look for sources themselves and evaluate what's already linked here before making a decision. When the discussion is closed, the closing editor (typically an administrator) will evaluate the merits of the policy-based arguments to determine consensus on what to do. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Ward (football coach)[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Subject is a football/soccer coach who fails WP:NFOOTBALL because he has neither played nor managed (been head coach) in a fully professional league or at senior international level. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana Division One is a fully professional league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianlogan77 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Mailer Society[edit]

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

Small 300 member society built around an admittedly notable author, but not apparently notable in its own right. There is some coverage in sources but I'm not seeing anything that passes trivial mention. They... have a podcast if your interested. Personally I'm not. TimothyJosephWood 23:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The NMS merits mention in Wikipedia by virtue of existing as a registered non-profit corporation in the State of New York. To delete the article would be to pretend the NMS does not exist. Steven A Brown (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Steven A. Brown[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stratajet[edit]

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

The references asserted in the previous AfD are press releases, as can be seen by the internal evidence of their identical phrasing. The only other argument from the contributor was that we have an article on a competitor--using such an argument proves the intent to be advertisement. There are many places for PR , but we're an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no encyclopedically relevant prose, and no sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Copy includes:
  • "In May 2016, Stratajet announced that it had received a round of funding..."
This content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:57, 8 April 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 Administrative divisions of India. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of regions of India[edit]

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

Unsourced inaccurate duplication of Administrative divisions of India. Batternut (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 22:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 22:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, should be a redirect. Batternut (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Clo[edit]

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

This AfD is an unbelievable waste of time and I will have to consider quitting the project if an admin closes this as no consensus because no one votes for deletion. The bureaucratic nonsense that this was de-PRODed seven years ago and so can't go through a PROD again has got to stop and the process must be reconsidered.

Based on current process, the subject clearly fails notability guidelines. The subject has performed in multiple bands but not independently notable. I see http://www.allmusic.com/artist/dave-clo-mn0000576206 and https://www.halleonard.com/biographyDisplay.do?id=241 but nothing to meet WP:GNG and certainly not WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of significant coverage of the musician in reliable sources so not passing WP:BASIC. I agree the prod process can be frustrating but we all have to follow the rules as they stand, most of my prods are quickly deprodded even when they are obvious for delete. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a Biography of a Living Person with no reliable, independent sourcing (BLPs are the only case I know of where the condition of the article IS a valid reason at AfD) or, if anyone pretends that my reason is wrong... GNG isn't met, no independent coverage, all sources are about him as part of a band & notability isn't inherited. McDonalds is notable but you don't see an article for every employee, do you? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't quite tell if Clo was an actual member of the bands mentioned in the lead or if he was an at-will employee/session-musician. I checked two of the groups' articles mentioned in this AFD candidate - in the Superchick article, it is asserted that he was in the band but his name isn't listed in the cited reference, Clo's name is also not mentioned at any of the online references for All Star United as being a member of that particular group. At Clo's official website, he does not claim membership in any of the bands in his article, the text states only that he "recorded and toured extensively with Grammy® and Dove Award nominated artists". Shearonink (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was a hired hand in all of the bands. Possibly a touring musician and not even a full member. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'Speedy Delete per WP:G5. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Kjær Sørensen[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Author of page has removed tags and twice reverted a redirect to the tenth season of the show she was on. JTtheOG (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect against recreation. Clearly not notable outside of the series they appeared in, but a redirect to the series is probably useful. The IP who continues to recreate the page has now been blocked for a year and I was going to protect this page today anyway if I saw it recreated (avoiding the need for AFD, I didn't really want to see the article existing for the duration!). anemoneprojectors 08:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open-E (company)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Sources are press releases or niche reviews. Very advertorial. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   21:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to list their products. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 23:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 23:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I wonder if speedy may be applicable as the article has been previously deleted under a different name; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open-E DSS V7. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Insofar as this title is specifically about the company, the previous AfD about their product cannot be reused. However, the content of this article is predominantly about the product (and should be pruned if the article survives this AfD). Reviewing it strictly about the company, as per the title, it is little more than a statement that the company exists, sourced to a product release announcement. I added a ref confirming the firm's funding and relocation, but that is no more than a passing mention. I am seeing nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agrizoophobia[edit]

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

A yet another nonnotable 'greek' phobia. No significant WP:MEDRS sources Staszek Lem (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Sounds like total nonsense, a mish-mash of quasi-Greek to fit some made-up word. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as Exemplo347 stated, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there are no reliable medical sources to suggest this is actually a notable 'thing'. Possible A7. YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 22:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Supranational (World Beauty Association)[edit]

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

Recreation of the previously deleted multiple times. Notability remains hughly dubious. Staszek Lem (talk)

  • 11:13, 3 September 2014 Anachronist (talk | contribs) deleted page Miss Supranational (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Supranational (2nd nomination))
  • 09:38, 31 August 2014 RoySmith (talk | contribs) deleted page Miss Supranational (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Supranational (2nd nomination))
  • 12:42, 18 December 2010 Dabomb87 (talk | contribs) deleted page Miss Supranational (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement (CSDH))
  • 13:08, 7 December 2010 Courcelles (talk | contribs) deleted page Miss Supranational (Mass removal of pages added by Dhimasbayu; A7 and G11)
  • 17:29, 7 September 2010 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page Miss Supranational (Expired PROD, concern was: This is not a notable beauty pageant. There are only 2 titleholders and barely any sources (none of which are from reliable third parties). Don't think this is notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia,)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & salt due to persistent recreation & promotionalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, salt, and sanction the editor who created it. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:AGF we cannot assume this is the same author who pushes it all these years. But from the love the page was written with I smell WP:COI (may be mistaken, since this is not exactly and SPA). Staszek Lem (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Benson[edit]

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

Non-notable singer - participation in a reality show is not enough. Does not meet WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Long history of IP reverting Redirects. I suggest straight-up deletion (with salt).Peter Rehse (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer - might want to consider salting the article as well, in light of the continued vandalism and disruptive editing on the article. Onel5969 TT me 17:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FinnSec Security[edit]

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

Non-notable script kiddies lacking significant coverage. Article was created and subsequently edited almost entirely by SPA which appear affiliated. Further, older revisions of article were largely unsourced (two refs failed verification) and advertorial in nature. Single claim to fame is renting a botnet to DDoS Web sites associated with a small Nordic country. -- dsprc [talk] 17:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks significant coverage. Very few search results in English (some in non-English that I was unable to evaluate). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:02, 12 April 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. WP:SNOW NeilN talk to me 14:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biokinesis[edit]

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

The only source for this article is a website that claims that "if shot in the head, a master of biokinesis could quickly repair the damage and dislodge the bullet" That doesn't quite jive with WP:MEDRS. Mduvekot (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A WP:FRINGE topic with virtual no reliable sources discussing it. While the term does come up in searches, none of the results are anything that could remotely be considered a reliable source. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as complete crap. A WP:COATRACK Cobbling together superpowers from comics with links to a site which claims to help people change eye colour. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete --FRINGE stuff that is not even notable enough to be discussed in RS. "videos of people tracking the progress of their change in eye color along with subliminal message videos that supposedly aid in doing just that" oy Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I tried it and it didn't work per WP:FRINGE Exemplo347 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - WP:FRINGE material that doesn't belong here. No third party reliable source. -- Dane talk 10:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As per !none of the above. — O Fortuna velut luna... 11:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with alacrity. I wish a master of biokinesis could repair the damage reading this has done to my brain. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 11:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. I don't often do a literal facepalm while reading an article, but I did now. --bonadea contributions talk 12:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: That palm can be removed through the power of Biokinesis. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Exemplo347: What I want to know is whether it can also remove sockpuppets. That would be a useful power! --bonadea contributions talk 19:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: I'm not sure, but I've just spotted that one of the article's links points to a $9 e-book. You may find your answer there. Now, I'm going back to the "change your eyes from brown to blue" video. It'll kick in any second now. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. What. Double sharp (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Saw this AfD referenced on a discussion page on an unrelated topic. Obviously this article promotes a fringe theory. However, in doing a Google Books search I noticed a number of references to the topic. See [6] So I wonder if perhaps the article could be re-created from scratch, acknowledging that this is a fringe theory. We do have articles on fringe theories. Just a suggestion; not favoring keep per se. Coretheapple (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The non-BS references there seem to all be fictional. If this is a common enough fantasy superpower it might be worth recreating this article in another form, but the current form of the article would have nothing to do with that and would deserve deletion – because, much as it would be fun to add it to my currently empty list of superpowers, this is not a real thing. Double sharp (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I get what you're saying. I just see a lot out there. Mind you, I realize that doesn't satisfy GNG, so I guess I will pile on with a delete. Coretheapple (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just wanted to point out that the applicable notability guideline is WP:NFRINGE. Apparently it does not meet the specifications of that guideline. I don't think MEDRS is relevant to this discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple: I assumed that that was WP:IRONY ;) but even so, you're dead right about the relevant guideline. — O Fortuna velut luna 09:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was worse---a brain freeze. I was thinking of a different rule. I struck it out. Coretheapple (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask if those could be repaired by biokinesis, but the joke's been practically run into the ground at this point. Though I wonder if we could all erase them from our memories by biokinesis and start using them again? ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pusu: Uyanış[edit]

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

A non-notable game. Can't seem to find any sources for the game, even in Turkish. GamerPro64 16:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Underdog (Morten Nørgaard song)[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion with no reason for contestation given. The reason for the proposed deletion was "does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for songs." Sjrct (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable song. Creator should be investigated for sockpuppetry, as there are two accounts and several IPs recreating and editing several similar pages. anemoneprojectors 16:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 17:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. J. Jelitto[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 7 April 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 XEJ-TDT. MBisanz talk 01:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Televisión de la Frontera[edit]

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

Ownership of one television and a newspaper does not mean the company merits an article on its own. Raymie (t • c) 05:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 19:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It Looks Like Susie[edit]

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

This article has no sources and does not demonstrate that "It Looks Like Susie" has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Eddie Blick (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Learnalot[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. 2 gnews hits. Looks suspiciously like an advert. Created by a single purpose editor LibStar (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 18:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natachusetts[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N standards gwendy (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sorry to pile on, but as stated, there's no claim of notability from a reliable source. Social media can be made (or faked) by anyone and doesn't count as a source. YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AIMS International[edit]

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

no evidence of notability except inclusion on a list DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 04:09, 8 April 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 WWE Network. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Legends of Wrestling[edit]

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

WWE Classics on Demand and later WWE Network chat series. I have looked for substantial coverage in reliable sources but besides from the expected mentions on pro wrestling blogs and one or two very passing mentions elsewhere, there's nothing to indicate this series in itself has any inherent notability. KaisaL (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:53, 7 April 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 WWE Network. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Legends' House[edit]

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

Non-notable WWE Network series that aired for two months in 2014. It was one of the first to be announced and this may be why it has an article, but it's never gained any cultural relevance nor coverage substantial enough to justify an article. The only sources are a non-reliable niche source and a primary source. KaisaL (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Weinberg[edit]

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

Borough Council leadership insufficient for notability under notability policy for UK local government politicians MapReader (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Leadership of a borough council could potentially get a person over WP:NPOL #2 — but passage or failure of that criterion is conditional on the depth of reliable sourceability, not on the mere fact that the person exists. The depth of sourcing here is not adequate, however; it's referenced to just three fairly WP:ROUTINE pieces of local media coverage, which is a volume and range of geographic coverage that any local councillor in pretty much any town or city could always expect to receive. To get in the door, he needs to be shown as significantly more notable than the norm, such as through nationalizing coverage (or at least considerably more local coverage than this.) Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think leadership of a London borough council is sufficient for notability, although merely being on the council wouldn't be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a much better depth of reliable source coverage, then sure, it would be sufficient. But it's not a position that hands him an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeel A. Qadeer[edit]

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

Looks like a promo-created biog. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IMZahidIqbal Andy Dingley (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:52, 10 April 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. Undisclosed paid editing NeilN talk to me 16:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Khan (Chai Wala)[edit]

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

New recreation after AfD by a now-blocked spammer. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arshad Khan (model) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arshad Khan (model) (2nd nomination) Andy Dingley (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy Dingley, I accepting I made some citation which is not suitable to Wikipedia. Get punished for 72 hours and learned a lot to never use such sites as the citation in Wikipedia. Will not do that again. There is no issue with this article. You can check the notability and verify references. Macrolancer (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about citations, it's about your use of multiple WP:SOCKPUPPET accounts. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Literacy Essentials for English Language Learners[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTPROMO. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unsourced article that fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails basic notability. Simply a chapter-by-chapter summary of contents with personal opinion tacked on at the end.Glendoremus (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Landscape design for educational function[edit]

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

Unsourced, tagged as such since 2015. Fails WP:NOTPROMO, more specifically point #5. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete unsourced essay that fails to inspire any confidence that it is a real thing. Mangoe (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Atwood[edit]

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

An unremarkable YouTube personality. Mjbmr (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Clearly a hoax nomination. This YouTuber has numerous articles about him. I'm going to the AN to report this guy soon. Hawkeye75 (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already deleted on Spanish Wikipedia (log), He is not a significant person. Mjbmr (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Figuring out what this guideline means would answer the question of why it was deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Both well sourced in the article - and plenty of sources available even in a cursory check.Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kazan Secondary School № 18[edit]

Kazan Secondary School № 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be promotional in nature, and a good-faith search for notability turned up nothing. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Secondary schools are kept if they can be shown to exist. It's part of UNESCO's ASPNet.[16] (same address) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • They aren't. The recent schools RFC reaffirmed that schools are not inherently notable. Rebbing 08:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not what the RfD was about. It was merely about formalising the consensus; it didn't destroy the consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks for finding that, Clarityfiend. It provides some notability. Information is difficult to find because much of it will be in Russian and search is difficult because of the various permutations of the name. I'm not sure "Kazan Secondary School № 18" is the best search string. In any case, local media is likely to have much more information than we can find. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Searches need to be conducted in Russian and perhaps using different phrasing. However, it has been shown to exist and the sourcing shows some notability. AusLondonder (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 12 April 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. MBisanz talk 01:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kakaraparthi BhavaNarayana College[edit]

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

Has multiple aging maintenance tags, is way to promotional in tone, and notability cannot be established. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and the precedent of keeping articles on degree-awarding institutions as long as they are verifiable by independent sources. This is also a reasonably old institution, and several articles in The Hindu and The Hans India has covered this college (e.g., [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], etc.). Just because the article is promotional (or has other issues) doesn't mean that it ought to be deleted; see WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Please stop nominating articles you don't like for deletion. — Stringy Acid (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:TNT, beginning "Kakaraparthi Bhavanarayana College is truly a dream come true for many..." and going on from there, it really is irredeemable in its current form, and there is really nothing much worth keeping, I'd say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All it needs is cleanup. Rather than wasting time on a deletion nomination why not just remove the promotional puffery? AusLondonder (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have now performed a major cleanup of the article which obviously should have been done by the nom per WP:BEFORE. AusLondonder (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The college exists and is genuine. --Artene50 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 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. relisting has not helped in gathering consensus, defaults to procedural keep as a result of no consensus, without prejudice for a new nomination Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Academician Zan Mitrev[edit]

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

BLPPROD removed with no reason given; still an unreferenced biography of a living person. I couldn't establish that he is notable. Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as there appear to be sources enough to establish notability. Note that there is an RM proposal to move to simply Zan Mitrev. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Roman Spinner, Which of these awards are notable and which part of WP:NOTABILITY do you think they contribute to? Do you have any sources to WP:V verify the claims in the section? Boleyn (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boleyn, the text under previously-existing article section headers "Education", "Career" and "Personal Achievements and Awards" was basically copied/translated directly from the medical center's own website accessible there via links "Education and work experience", "Memberships", "Publications" and "Professional skills". The citations of Mitrev's writings can also be confirmed through Google scholar here. He is positioned as one of Macedonia's most eminent practitioners of cardiovascular surgery, having managed, for the past 18 years, the specified medical center in the country's capital and as participant in Macedonian Congress of Cardiology. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Roman Spinner that page is WP:SPS and we don't use SPS for extraordinary/promotional content like "one of Macedonia's most eminent practitioners of cardiovascular surgery" - this is policy - see WP:BLPSPS. SPS do not play into Notability discussions either. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Jytdog the words "He is positioned as one of Macedonia's most eminent practitioners of cardiovascular surgery" are mine, as deduced from reading online content regarding Mitrev, and submitted as a personal argument against deletion of the article. The links which I provided, however, come directly from the medical center's own website, the website of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Network and google scholar. If, among those, are any self-published unreliable sources, then such sources should be clearly linked here for the purposes of this discussion and isolated from other sources which are acceptably reliable. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the majority of the article as unsourced as it relates to a living person. If anyone can find anything reliable to back up any of what was there feel free. Amortias (T)(C) 17:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the article has been significantly pruned down compared to its state when it was nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: an RM has been closed as moving this title to Zan Mitrev if the AfD closes as keep. There were no arguments to keep or delete at the RM, and this should not have an impact on the outcome of the AfD, but noting it here so it can be implemented if need be. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of gaming computers[edit]

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

I put this up as a PROD and it was contested. However, this is still not appropriate subject matter. WP:LISTCRUFT is not official policy, but many of the common objections apply: there are no clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion in the list, the list will become dated very quickly, and if any of the members of the list are noteworthy then they should be in a category Category:Gaming computers rather than this list. It also inherently requires original research since there are no definitive third-party lists that agree as to membership in this list (or it's unverifiable). Alternatively, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information but I think the listcruft essay does a better job explaining the issues. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a consumer reference site, this is not encyclopedia-worthy information. ValarianB (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As failing NOTCATALOG, essentially being OR, and WP:LISTN. -- ferret (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I do feel that certain machines (Alienware, for example) can be reliably sourced as "gaming computers", but this current article isn't really right for that. So redirect to gaming computer. ansh666 18:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasoning, but I would like to suggest that a List of gaming computer manufacturers would be a reasonable list. Eg no product details, but just company names that have been involved in making gaming computers that are also notable (past and present). That could be a category possibly. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as my nom.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list without sources is useless per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTCATALOG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 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. I'm probably going to catch some flak for this, but despite what would normally seem to be an inconclusive headcount, the arguments against keeping this as a standalone article far outweigh the "keep" arguments. Those in favor of keeping the page seem impressed by the size of the company, though in light of WP:NOTINHERETED, this says little about the notability of its executives. With few or no examples of in-depth, reliable sources being produced, WP:GHITS arguments were appropriately discounted, as were WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS assertions. I'm struggling to find any policy-based reasons for keeping the article in more than a month of open discussion, but several valid arguments for deletion have been presented. I'll temporarily restore the deleted content upon request to allow for the suggested merge. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Harquail[edit]

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

Harquail is a businessman of minor importance. A search for sources turned up some routine coverage but nothing suggesting he has actually reached accomplishments that are notable, that his coverage is more than routine, and it is debatable it is indepth enough in reliable 3rd party sources to pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's the CEO of a 15.4 Billion dollar company (from 2007 - bringing it from around 1 Billion market cap to 15.4 - [23]) which is part of Canada's main stock index - S&P/TSX 60. There is coverage - 100+ google news hits, some from reputable sources. The article itself is poorly sourced and very brief (probably created by user:QatarStarsLeague as part of a mining/oil who and who) - but this guy is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (FTSE-100 or Fortune-500 for UK / US CEO's generally seen as notable) adapted to Canada would be S&P/TSX 60.Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's faulty logic, if the Canadian stock market is dwarfed by the US and UK markets. We don't scale down the two largest stock markets to synthesize equivalents in minor markets, else we could do that for Singapore, Mexico, Hong Kong, and others that aren't significant. I'm not saying the guy isn't notable, but scaling the S&P 500 / FTSE 100 down to some other size and claiming it's equivalent doesn't make much sense to me. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
S&P/TSX-60 is a smaller index - 60 components - compared to 500 and 100 respectively. It is the leading stock index in the Canadian stock market. In most markets one wouldn't look at 500 companies. But if a company is one of the largest X in a notable publicaly traded market that adds some presumed notability. For the case in question - Seeing that he is covered in the news (some hits) + CEO of a large Canadian mining company (in the TSX-60 index) - is vastly different than some news + CEO of "Joe's mining supplies". The smallest S&P-500 component has a market cap of 4.3 Billion ([24]) - Franco-Nevada is at 15.4 Billion - it would definitely be in the S&P-500 if it were an American company (which is needed for inclusion in the index).Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Market cap isn't a hard and fast notability criterion, though. Both bullet points of WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE indicate that market cap means an article on a businessperson is "generally kept" although can be merged into the article about the company. Notability by virtue of market cap isn't automatic. Also, notability is not inherited; just because the company may be notable doesn't necessarily mean that one of its executives is notable. I'd say the best gauge here is more-than-routine significant coverage in reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a hard and fast criterion - but it is a significant factor. With Harquail a quick Google-News check shows coverage from several reputable sources. Coupled with the fact he's a CEO of an 15.4 Billion dollar company (for the past 10 years - company size that would be included in S&P-500 (around 4 billion USD threshold) or FTSE-100 (around 2-3 billion pounds threshold)) - it's fairly safe to say he's notable. We're not talking about the CEO of a mom and pop store with some coverage we have to assess. Google-news - [25] (with hits going back a few years - to 2008 (single) and several before 2014).Icewhiz (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I added a few sources + a line on his philanthropy (namely a 10 million dollar donation for earth science research). Still a stub.Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know relisting a third time is unconventional but there has been no discussion on whether the new sources added by Icewhiz are sufficient to prove notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 06:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (adapted to Canada) is in play here - this is a CEO of 15.4 billion dollar company - well above the size threshold for fortune-500 or ftse100 (which are around 3-4 billion). It's not just the added sources (which are also there).Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Franco-Nevada. Based on my comments above, I am unconvinced that we need a stand-alone article about this person. WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE is neither policy nor guideline; rather it's an explanatory essay about historical outcomes of deletion discussions. Referencing that in a new AFD discussion amounts to a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, in my view. There is no inclusion criterion based on market capitalization, for articles about company executives. Until such a criterion is defined, we need to go by WP:SIGCOV, and as far as I can see, the coverage has been WP:ROUTINE for a large-company executive. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with IceWhiz who wrote:"Keep - He's the CEO of a 15.4 Billion dollar company (from 2007 - bringing it from around 1 Billion market cap to 15.4 - [26]) which is part of Canada's main stock index - S&P/TSX 60. There is coverage - 100+ google news hits, some from reputable sources. The article itself is poorly sourced and very brief (probably created by user:QatarStarsLeague as part of a mining/oil who and who) - but this guy is notable." Increasing a companies worth by about 14 billion dollars is clearly notable. Also, I would made a correction. I am finding over 5,000 Google hits.[27] Wikipedia lists businessmen who have achieved far less. I do think that greater efforts should be made to expand the article. He also has an extensive background in his industry and his Bloomberg.com profile reflects this matter.[28] Dean Esmay (talk)
    Um, are you aware that Google hits and a profile on Bloomberg aren't relevant to any notability criterion on Wikipedia? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not every CEO is notable. I made an attempt to locate sources: nothing comes in Gbooks except for directory listings. No substantial coverage to be found in Gnews; hits are mostly the CEO discussing the company's financial results, which is routine coverage that does not count towards GNG. The company is notable, for sure, but its executive is not. I'm not seeing coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 15 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Ovens[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NTRACK, as she didn't finish in the top 8 at the Commonwealth Games or top 3 in another international competition. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GNG met. Article could use further expansion and reference integration, not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the sources listed by Hmlarson?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Common sense should indicate that a national athletics champion who competed at several major games is suitable for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have WP:NTRACK for a reason. Just competing a the national level isn't enough. Lots of people do that, as there are lots of nations that have lots of championships every year. Instead, you have to have won a national championship or placed highly in an international championship to get presumed notability. If you disagree with that, take it up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics. Failing a presumption of notability based on WP:NTRACK, you have to demonstrate that their was a sufficient level of non-routine significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article to satisfy WP:GNG. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A guideline is a rule of thumb, and should never override common sense. Having said that, since Ovens was a national champion (2003 and 2006 1500m AAA indoor champion), satisfying criterion 5 of that guideline, and competed in the World Indoor Championships in 2003, satisfying criterion 1, she satisfies WP:NTRACK. --Michig (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Actually she also won the 1500m AAA indoor in 2005 - see this. So a 3-time national champion who also competed in the World Indoor Championships. --Michig (talk) 17:27, 10 April 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 19:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hassanal Abdullah[edit]

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

Poet and I am afraid, fails WP:CREATIVE. No reviews of his work, some minor awards, very little coverage. Nothing in Google News, few mentions in Google Books but in passing, at least one source refers to Nigerian poet Hassanal Abdullah (b. 1967) (same subject or different?)... Another red flag - tried searching for info on his recent (2016) book, "Hollowness on the Horizon" by Naznin Seamon, and I get 4 google hits (in any case, it seems he was a translator here, not writer). Granted, we have to keep WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in mind, there may be sources in non-English (Bangladeshi?), but we cannot assume such sources exit. Ping User:Cirt who nominated this for AfD few years back. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say that he's relatively notable on the basis that he created "Swatantra Sonnets," and after all, he has won at least some awards. Kamalthebest (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I think the list of his works should be condensed to just those that are notable because its current form looks fairly unprofessional. Kamalthebest (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamalthebest: Swatantra Sonnets are not a form, they are a book. The ref given is [29], which looks pretty much like a blurb one writes when asked by an event organizers, i.e. it was likely written by the subject. Google search for " Swatantra Sonnets" is only 220 hits, mostly amazon and social media. No sign this work received any critical reception. Please note the publication date - 2017. Way too soon for them to be important. Also, Feral Press is an obscure publisher, possibly a vanity press. ISBN search for the book yield little beyond Amazon page ([30]) which doesn't even list publisher, further suggesting it is a very minor entity or a self-published work. Perhaps you may want to reconsider your argument. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Take a look please: [31]Kontrola (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying he hasn't published stuff, but that's not enough, take a look at WP:CREATIVE. PS. Also, as I noted on several other pages, I'd like you to answer if you have any COI here (WP:PAID)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I prepare theme about people in Homer the Award, NOBODY paid for it! I spend a lot of time to build this theme. Kontrola (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worthy poet but notability not established to any substantial extent. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, Hassanal Abdullah is a fine poet, translator, and editor of a world-renowned international bilingual (Bengali-English & Other Languages) magazine. He is also the author of 37 books of his own original poetry, many in bilingual format (Bengali-English). He has also been published widely in many parts of the world--Italy, Wales, Poland, India, Vietnam, Korea, China, Japan--and, of course, America and Bangladesh. I am Abdullah's publisher in the USA, and I note that there are many errors in the data above in the argument. For instance, he is not from Nigeria; he's from Bangladesh, currently living and working in New York. I nominated him for the Homer Medal, which was received in China at the Silk Road International Poetry Festival, last June, 2016, for which he was invited gratis by the Chinese government. I strongly suggest that Hassanal Abdullah's listing in Wikipedia be retained. --Stanley H. Barkan, Publisher, Cross-Cultural Communications, 1 April 2017[1]67.84.7.58 (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ www.cross-culturalcommunications.com
  • Delete- World renowned yet not a single good citation, not a single reference found from using google news. Many of the keep votes seem to a case of sock puppetry.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - His outstanding contribution is not only creating a new sonnet form, he also wrote a 304-page epic, Nakkhotra O Manusher Prochhed, where he illustrated the relation between human beings and the universe using several scientific theories. The poet talks about this in an interview with a British poetry Journal, The Seventh Quarry. He said, “...I wrote it [the epic] on the scientific understanding of the relation between human beings and the universe.Poets, from more than ten languages, gathered at the Poets House, New York, to celebrated Hassanal Abdullah’s book publication ceremony, co-sponsored by Poets House and Cross-Cultural Communications. Later, Naoshi Karyama, a Japanese poet, praised the book as, “...a unique, remarkable book, ...that has powerful words and images.” Adel Gorgy, a renowned American painter, used several poems of Hassanal Abdullah to incorporate his artwork. Queens Public Library collaborated with him arranging a 3-day International Poetry Festival to mark the 15 years anniversary of the magazine, Shabdaguchha, of which he is the founder and the editor since 1998. Hassanal Abdullah translated more than 30 Bengali poets into English, 12 and a significant number of world poets including Charles Baudelaire, Nâzım Hikmet, Tomas Tranströmer, Nicanor Parra, and Wislawa Szymborska into Bengali. In addition, an entire issue of Anubhuti, a literary magazine from Bangladesh was published in 2015 to honor Hassanal Abdullah’s significant contribution to poetry.He was also invited by the Chinese government to attand the International Silk Road Poetry Festival in June of 2016 -first from Bengali . An Interview with Hassanal Abdullah at VOA (Voice Of American) Bangla Radio: [32] - kontrola (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't cast double votes... And seriously, Wikipedia is not a place to promote someone. If he is so oustanding, then he needs to get recognition from reputable institutions/publications first. And when you mention other sources, please cite or reference them properly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Double vote struck. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - simply does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 TT me 18:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article doesn't establish notability adequately. I tried finding sources, but could only find primary sources closely connected to the subject. — Stringy Acid (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a Bengali reader, I know the poet through his poetry. Recently, one of the famous poets of Bangladesh, Nirmalendu Goon wrote about Hassanal Abdullah in a Daily news paper of Bangladesh, The Bhorer Kagoj, congratulating him on his 50th Birthday in advance by calling him "a significant Bengali poet".[1] I encourage English reader to read it in google translation. The same paper also published a review of his book. Presumably, it is the 2nd edition of his epic. The reviewer mentioned, "It is one of the best books of the present time."[2] --Rafi67.250.81.148 (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bhorerkagoj.net/print-edition/2017/04/07/140329.php
  2. ^ http://www.bhorerkagoj.net/print-edition/2017/04/07/140330.php
    • Bhorer Kagoj exists, through how reliable it is, I am not prepared to say. Google Translate fails badly, but I AGF what you say; through the first article is attributed to just Goon (according to GT). That Nirmalendu Goon writes about the subject in a positive manner is the best indicator of notability I've seen here so far. I'd hope we could hear more from Banladeshi editors on the significance of this source. How significant is this endorsement of the subject from Nirmalendu Goon in [[Bhorer Kagoj]? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Recent reviews of Hassanal Abdullah’s poetry by the professors of five different universities in four different countries:

India: 1. Prof. Bishnupada Ray, Dept of English, Calcutta University: Reviewed Hassanal Abdullah's poetry in Ajker Kobita, October, 2014

2. Minakshi Datta, daughter of the great Bengali poet Buddhadeb Bosu, who is currently an adjunct Professor at Rutgers University, Reviewed Hassanal Abdullah’s poetry in the Daily Ajkal, December, 2016

Japan: 3. Poet Naoshi Koriyama, former professor at Tokyo University, Reviewed Hassanal Abdullah’s work in Pandora, a bilingual Literary Magazine, January, 2017

USA: 4. Prof. Joan Digby, Director of the Creative writing Dept at Long Island University, wrote the Preface for “Swatantra Sonnets: Bengali with English Translation by the author,” February, 2017

5. Prof. Nicholas Birns, Dept of English at New York University, reviewed Hassanal Abdullah’s poetry in Shabdaguchha, January-June, 2015

Bangladesh: 6. Jyoti Prakash Dutta (writer), a well-known short story writer and the winner of the Ekushy Padak, the highest national award, Bangladesh, reviewed Hassanal Abdullah’s poetry in the Daily Bhorer Kagoj, April, 2016

Please note that these are just a few reviews of the poet’s work. To celebrate his 50th Birthday, Hassanal Abdullah: Poet Voyager, 240-page collection of the review of the poet’s work is about to be published by Puthiniloy Publishing House, Dhaka. --Stanley H. Barkan 67.84.7.58 (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This sounds nice, in light of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS - but it is also a possible hoax (or at least, a bad failure of transliteration and referencing). Re 1. Dept of English, Calcutta University does not have a professor named Bishnupada Ray: [33] Ajker Kobita does seem to exist, through I cannot find much about it. Unless a link can be provided, it seems like a undigitized, zero-impact publication. Re 2. I cannot find any source to confirm this claim. Re 3. I cannot find any source to confirm this claim. 4. Even if it is true, having a preface is not an indicator of notability. Re 5: this seems to be based on claim by the subject: [34] in his self-published book. Re 6. I cannot find any source to confirm this claim; through perhaps you refer to [35]; unfortunately Google Translate does not indicate who is the author (I can't find mention of Jyoti Prakash Dutta there, and our article on him does not contain his name spelled in Bangladeshi script, so I cannot search for it in the original article). I am sorry, but those claims seem to me like, well, hoaxes. To prove me wrong, please provide links, or if the sources are not digital, scans of the material. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another double vote struck. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No pass of WP:GNG is evident and the promotionalism apparent here makes the marginal sources of the article more suspect. The only one that looks plausibly reliable is the Queens Borough Poet Laureate Honorable Mention, and that gives only a passing mention, not enough nontrivial detail about the subject to be worth much. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on balance, not sufficient evidence of notability. I agree with David E's analysis here .` DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is obviously a heated debate, but I really do not see enough evidence of notability here, as stated by some of the commentators above. If there is more media coverage about Abdullah in Bengali sources, then I recommend writing about him Bengali Wikipedia and encouraging an English-language page to be translated after this article has already been established and verified by editors here. Clawsyclaw (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I made a 18-page critical discussion on his epic, Nakkhotra O Manusher Prochhed (Star and Human Cantata), which was published in my book, Omar Khayyam and Other Poets (Labu Bhai Foundation, 2009) ISBN 984-70023-0011-7. Hassanal Abdullah is one of the significant figures of Post Modern Bengali poetry. I believe his Swatantra Sonnets and the epic are two important contributions to poetry among many of his other works. Dr. Jyoti Prakash Dutta (writer) also wrote on this epic on the Daily Bhorer Kajog.[1]Mohammed A Rahman (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Mohammed A Rahman (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bhorerkagoj.net/print-edition/2016/04/22/85410.php
    • I can only assume you translated the book title, as no such book seems to exist. I also cannot find a book with such an ISBN title in worldcat. While non-English references are accepted, we have to be able to judge their reliability. You believe that this is an important work - but are you an expert? A professor of Bengali literature? Is Labu Bhai Foundation a reliable publisher, with peer review and such? All we have so far is a single newspaper article you cite in which one of the subject works is, AGF, reviewed by a notable writer/scholar. That's a good start, but more is needed. Also, as noted above, the fact that he does not yet have an article on Bengali Wikipedia is a red flag: if he is not important enough to have an article about him in Bengali, it is unlikely he is important enough for us. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. obvious spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Nutrition For Life[edit]

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

Page is relatively new and written in incorrect format, and like and advertisement. UserDe (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LibreTorrent[edit]

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

advertisement for non notable software. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage is in the article and I couldn't find any. SL93 (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON; no indications that this software is significant enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another torrent client, complete blank when searching for suitable sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kissmetrics[edit]

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

This unfortunately failed to get deleted at AfD 2 years ago; but it was not notable then, and is not now. The lawsuit is trivial and there isn';t much else. The sources in the article are mainly PR, and the others listed at the previous afd were essentially mere mentions among many other similar and better known services. There was 1 case study, but that's not notability DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People make mistakes, I don't see why this is worthy of a comment but okay. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 12:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The case study in the 2016 book The Lean Entrepreneur published by John Wiley & Sons provides extensive coverage of the subject.

    The Wired and TechCrunch articles provide significant coverage about the subject and are not press releases. They are written by established journalists and published by reputable news organizations. I agree with Cavarrone at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissmetrics that "I have never seen press releases opening about lawsuits against the companies they should promote."

    Here is another article about the subject:

    1. Valentino-DeVries, Jennifer (2011-08-22). "'Supercookie' Code Seen on Hundreds of Sites". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley originally found that cookies stored in the browser’s “cache” of previously visited websites could be used to respawn cookies on Hulu’s website. Code responsible for this capability came from a company called Kissmetrics, which analyzes website-traffic data.

      But the Kissmetrics code wasn’t limited to Hulu. Technology researchers Ashkan Soltani, who worked on the original Berkeley study, and Nick Doty analyzed the top 1 million websites and found that 515 of them were using the same Kissmetrics code. The “sole function” of that code was to “set a persistent identifier via the browser cache,” Soltani wrote.

      ...

      The websites containing the code included music service Spotify.com, personal finance site Mint.com, crafts marketplace etsy.com, government site challenge.gov and profiles site about.me.

      ...

      Kissmetrics has said that after the original study, it stopped using these types of cache cookies and will use only regular cookies in the future. The site also has an opt-out available. (Your Digits blogger had a bit of trouble finding it on the Kissmetrics site, but it can be found here or by Googling “Kissmetrics opt out.”)

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

    Cunard (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Vanjagenije. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of 21st-century outdoor educators and outdoor personalities[edit]

List of 21st-century outdoor educators and outdoor personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A "curated" list of people who are said to be "outdoor personalities", without defining any criteria for inclusion. The list doesn't not appear to correspond to any category or intersection of several categories, like Hunters and Television personalities and as such does not aid in navigation. Mduvekot (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weirdly specific and useless, the criteria is broad enough to cover every tv personality who either hosts or has guest-starred in an outdoors show. ValarianB (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indiscriminate list, very very obviously created so they could link an article they've created - Blake Alma (radio host) that is itself highly questionable. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Mason[edit]

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

The sourcing here is fairly terrible, one interview in a non-notable publication and a fawning review of one of his movies. Additionally, this fails WP:PORNBIO. AniMate 04:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Interviews are primary sources and do not accord notability. Spartaz Humbug! 10:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- sources are unsuitable for a BLP and notability is not established. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 13 April 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 Trial of Clay Shaw. Black Kite (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roger D. Craig[edit]

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

Since we apparently cannot simply redirect this bit player in a JFK conspiracy to the trial in which he made a minor appearance, we'll have to discuss deleting it outright first. Anyway, the trial was a farce, the book which is the only non-primary source was roundly panned, and this fellow, whatever one can dig up from primary sources, is unimportant. Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Trial of Clay Shaw, and deal with anything worth keeping there. No independent notability. Anmccaff (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of a bazillion witness called by either the Warren Commission or Jim Garrison. The conspiracy-minded get off on his testimony because he said he saw Oswald escape Dealey Plaza with a possible co-conspirator, but despite this there is no significant coverage about him in reliable secondary sources. What we are left with is a form of a coat rack onto which one can hang links to various conspiracy books, websites, and You Tube videos. (I don't see anything to merge, but I'm fine with redirect/merge to Trial of Clay Shaw or John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.) - Location (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The man's background and his involvement in the JFK Conspiracy Theory are sufficient grounds to warrant a separate article on himself. After all, he was an important witness in events leading-up to and during the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy. It is my personal view that people should be allowed to formulate their own opinions, without undue interference in that process, especially in what is already privately well-known.Davidbena (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Privately well known? TINSK!
Yes, I say "privately well-known," since there has been some effort to keep the knowledge of these things out of public schools, government printing presses, newspapers, etc., therefore, the knowledge of the affairs relating to JFK's assassination has been acquired by many, many individuals chiefly through private research, and is now known largely in the private sector.Davidbena (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that there's nothing here which says anything beyond "he was a guy in the sheriff's office who was a bystander at the JFK assassination". Presumably you're going to want to complain about all the material that was removed, but we're going to have severe problems with the website used as a source. Mangoe (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think that a witness who was questioned by the Warren Commission, and who was sought after by New Orleans' Attorney Jim Garrison, is worthy of a Wiki article explaining who he is and how he fits in to the JFK assassination conspiracy, whether it be theory or fact?Davidbena (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Unless he has some significance beyond those activities, he should be covered within them. As mentioned elswwhere here, this looks a good deal like WP:COATracking, with a side order of POV fork. Anmccaff (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the reasons I've given above, Roger D. Craig and his testimony have been written about in many books. As for POV fork, since witnesses and their testimonies differ one from the other, separate articles on them (in the JFK assassination conspiracy theory) should not be considered a "fork" of some other similar article. Each article on each individual has its own merits.Davidbena (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, so the sekret kabal mentioned above kept the TRVTH from the PVBLIC by hiding it in books, then? Wise choice. Anmccaff (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly a WP:COATrack and there is zero justification for standalone articles. All of the content is currently being discussed in enough detail at other articles, in spite of the instance of the administrator who reversed the redirect. jps (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The classification of this article as infringing upon "Coatracking" is an allegation that is as absurd as I've heard anywhere, since there is no secret or hidden meaning why we have decided to write upon this man. Nothing here is construed for what it is not. Craig was an important witness in the JFK murder conspiracy theory, and deserves his rightful place in American history.Davidbena (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Trial of Clay Shaw and/or John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. No matter of what kind, he gave a testimony in court of law. There are enough adequate sources. Deleting completely would not be fair in my opinion. —usernamekiran[talk] 18:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Individual is sufficiently WP:NOTABLE and otherwise a fairly well-known figure in the assassination who participated in the Warren Commission proceedings, the Clay Shaw trial, several documentaries, and various books on the subject. Earl of Arundel (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the trial article or the conspiracy theory article (or both)... per ONEEVENT. Not enough sourcing on the subject himself to merit a stand alone article. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when the article was first written, we brought down plenty of sourcing, but for some reason the article was considerably cut down in size and the sourcing deleted.Davidbena (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jim Garrison's book, which is referred to as further reading in the Craig article, besides all the different mentions of him listed there in that section, also has a picture of Craig in the office of Dallas Police Sheriff Captain Will Fritz on the evening of November 22, 1963. The picture is among all pictures published by Garrison in his book between pages 218 and 219. The photo is there because Captain Fritz denied Craig's presence in the office on that day and at that time, until the photo was revealed years later. Has this photo been ever "debunked" by the deniers of any conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy? If it has not, this would be enough reason, in my view, to keep and expand/improve this article. warshy (¥¥) 22:22, 12 April 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. There is a majority (5v3) in favour of Delete here, but more importantly the majority of the Keep comments do not advance any policy-compliant reasons for that opinion (for example, the existence of verified social media platforms does not address any part of PORNBIO or GNG). Black Kite (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Phoenix[edit]

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

Unremarkable as either singer, model, actress, pornographic actress, aerialist, or writer. Significant RS coverage not found; only trivial mentions and / or tabloid-like coverage. The article has been previously deleted, per the 2013 AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete someone clearly doesnt know how to assess a reliable source. Being verified on spotify does not meet the gng, Spartaz Humbug! 07:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep someone clearly doesn't know what notabilty requirements are under WP:PORNBIO in addition, documentation supplied showing Verification across all Social Media platforms and Music Platforms go specifically to items (2) and (3) listed under WP:PORNBIO along with the vast amount of supporting documentation that was intentionally deleted from this page before the same editor nominated it for deletion, after it was approved as having already passed notability requirements by editors. (See BELOW) Art javier (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha. Go check the archives. I helped write pornbio old boy and have been involved in numerous discussions of its meaning, i think its safe to say that my grip on deletion issues is more secure than your grip on civility. Have a nice day now... Spartaz Humbug! 17:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an old boy, and your comment about "Someone not knowing...." was responded to with facts, simply stated, the article was reviewed already by Devopam (talk) and was found to have met Notability. Your comments won't change that, but thank you and I am having a nice day. If you wrote the WP:PORNBIO guidelines then you already also know this to be true. Comments about my age or anything else won't change the facts at issue. Please keep your comments constructive, and feel free to add references to help with the article in order to improve it, rather than making statements that are already documented as not true. :) Art javier (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be happier if i called you dear boy? Spartaz Humbug! 17:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be far happier if you simply assisted in helping make the article better, since the strength for notability already exists, and since you have said that you have helped with the WP:PORNBIO you would be in a great position to assist with this, and I for one would greatly appreciate the help, since I have watched the article have vast portions deleted despite other editors putting it up, helping with it, reviewing that it met notability etc. I think that would be a wonderful use of your time, and you are in a unique position to help. Would you please help? Thanks in advance if you will please do so as there has been a substantial time investment by a number of editors on this article. Art javier (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Her coverage varies from AVN[37] & XBIZ[38] to music publications[39][40][41] to the National Review[42]. That satisfies my threshold for the notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article has changed shape drastically from when I reviewed it last, yet I find this satisfies the notability criteria. Devopam (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage appears to be of the routine variety. Cant find as the winner of any awards, only nominated. Being verified by various social media is not evidence of notability (its actually very easy to get verified by Twitter for example. Just create a load of impersonation accounts, use proxy IP's to post obscenities and actionable slander, claim Twitter's not taking action, ask for the 'tick', bob's your uncle). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, it is not easy to get verified on twitter at all with only 190,000 verified twitter accounts and 300 Million users thats about .06%. You can read about that here:
https://thenextweb.com/twitter/2016/07/22/twitter-verification-rises/#.tnw_zyJvMVl0
Also Twitter (as well as social media companies) have algorithms that make is easy to find fake accounts which is why they don't verify accounts with Bots or fake followers. More on topic though, simply searching the internet brings up far more notability for the page in question than a verified twitter (as seen below), and by links other editors have placed up here as well. WP:PORNBIO is very specific about what the requirements are for notability, and winning award is just one of three potential avenues. As noted, she more than qualifies in the other 2 areas (not just one). I have taken the liberty of listing those below for everyone to read in order to make it easy for people to reference. Thank you so much for taking the time to become part of this discussion though, and I hope to talk with you more in the future! If you ever have any specific questions regarding social media just leave me a message on my talk page! Art javier (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notable recording as a musician, no notable awards as an actress. Nominations are not awards. No unique contributions--writing a self-published book is neither unique or significant. As for " featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." this means mainstream, not porn-specific. I don't see anything that's not trivial. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable as a porn performer. Not notable as a musician (flimsy, mostly local, coverage). Most of the substantive sourcing is based on the subject's own promotional material. Lots of COI editing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather interesting that this has come up again[edit]

It is important that editors who are viewing this page have the opportunity to view the information that has been removed that specifically cite Notability. Any unbiased editor would want all facts available for anyone to read in order to make an informed decision regarding this article and the statements made by other editors as well as the fact that the article was already reviewed and found to meet notability under WP:PORNBIO We should let EVERYONE else be the judge of the facts and not just one editors opinions. Art javier (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this is a personal issue rather than actual fact.

1) this page had the Picture of Nikki Phoenix removed by various editors making false statements that were TOTALLY refuted by the OTRS process, and the picture was reinstated.

2) let us all look at what notability requirements are, which I took the liberty of posting on the talk page for this article:

== Notability ==

Does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO nor WP:NMUSIC. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

== Has already met Notability and was documented on the article talk page ==

Has already met notability per WP:PORNBIO noted by Devopam (talk)

Perhaps looking at his comment will help with a frame of reference.

Hi, I'm Devopam. Art javier, thanks for creating Nikki Phoenix!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Article has potential and passess WP:PORNBIO. Need recommended improvements in order to make it a good read.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Devopam (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to refresh everyones memory on what that is:

People involved in pornography:

Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.

Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or being a member of an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. (clearly shown from her music contributions; performances at AVN, Music Festivals and Nightclubs throughout the US; her beginning the trend for adult stars to become EDM musicians and DJs (Carter Cruise, DJ Darcie Dolce and others) of which she is the only one who is singing, writing, producing and performing as an aerialist while singing and performing her songs which hit #1 on Soundcloud and had documented radio play in Canada, the US and Europe; her 12 awards nominations including for Best Soundtrack for her own movie she produced and starred in (beginning another trend in pornography); the fact she is an owner producer of both movies and music and is concurrently and actively engaged in both clearly make her "Notable" as well as the person who started this particular trend in pornography; all of which have also been deleted off her page)

Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. (Clearly documented from all of the mainstream press, that has also been deleted off her page)

Perhaps that's why the page was already documented as having met notability per WP:PORNBIO noted by Devopam (talk)


While I did not put this page back up on Wikipedia, I'm rather amused that people seek to delete the portions they know go specifically to her notability. --Art javier (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3) the Statement "Unremarkable as either singer, model, actress, pornographic actress, aerialist, or writer. Significant RS coverage not found; only trivial mentions and / or tabloid-like coverage." shows the failure of any substantial research on Nikki Phoenix i.e.: 

  a) Verified Twitter:   https://twitter.com/iamnikkiphoenix
  b) Verified Instgram:  https://www.instagram.com/iamnikkiphoenix/
  c) Verified Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/ThePhoenixEmpire/
  d) Verified Shazam:    https://www.shazam.com/artist/46166613/nikki-phoenix
  e) Verified Spotify:   https://open.spotify.com/artist/2FP1qLqOFkP9IsQckHbJgF (must be logged into your spotify account of course)
  f) music available on Google: https://play.google.com/store/music/artist/Nikki_Phoenix?id=Aj5f5aysacc6mzkzesyuvkcqvey
  g) music available on Itunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/days-like-this-single/id1122644216

Lets note that she is the only person in the history of the adult business to be verified on Spotify and Shazam, as well as having a #1 single on Soundcloud with 14 Million Plays and documented radio play in Canada, US and Europe. That in itself is "Remarkable", however, the fact that she has met Notability requirements on all social media and music platforms, and has Verified Accounts on all of them shows specifically that she is in fact "Notable". 

  f) 12 time Mainstream Star of the Year Nominee, by AVN, XRCO and XBIZ, as well as Best Soundtrack, Best Website and Best New Imprint make her "Remarkable" in her adult endeavors.

Her endeavors are all clearly documented on her IMDb page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4832064/ 

  g) radio co-host on LA Talk Radio:  (just a few examples LOL)

http://latalkradio.com/thursday-july-30-2015amber%20#audio_play

http://latalkradio.com/content/amberlynn-032615%20#audio_play

http://latalkradio.com/content/amberlynn-012915%20#audio_play

and 

  H) appearances on XM Radio: http://media.wix.com/ugd/78ea46_0905f4ab133b4e4e8e3fafca091bf430.pdf

From her website: http://www.iamnikkiphoenix.com/ Not sure again, why a simple search on the internet by K.e.coffman did not show all of the reference material available to everyone 

  I) appearances on numerous other radio show and stations, i.e. WMAY:  http://www.wmay.com/episode/the-mancave-with-nikki-phoenix/

Which CLEARLY make her "Remarkable" LOL, yet puzzling that K.e.coffman would fail to find any of these things on a brief internet search.

4) the statement "Unremarkable" as a musician who has headlined major music festivals and nightclubs all across the US is a bit puzzling too. They are listed on her site here: http://www.iamnikkiphoenix.com/iamnikkiphoenixshows but for those who seek a outside source, they are also listed on well known sites like RESIDENT ADVISOR: https://www.residentadvisor.net/search.aspx?searchstr=Nikki%20Phoenix

Which also show the Billboards for the events, her music and event details.

5) Interviewed by numerous legitimate news and magazine sources including Vegas Seven Magazine, ThisIs50 and DJOYBeat documenting her Notability in Adult and Music: http://vegasseven.com/2014/04/22/nikki-phoenix-plays-beauty-beat/

http://www.thisis50.com/profiles/blogs/exclusive-interview-nikki-phoenix

http://www.djoybeat.com/exclusive-adult-starlet-nikki-phoenix-on-her-new-edm-career/

AGAIN HOW THESE EASILY SEARCHED ARTICLES WERE MISSED OR WHY SOMEONE WOULD NOT SEE THEY CLEARLY FALL UNDER: WP:PORNBIO simply shows bias by this editor.

Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. Just to refresh everyone's memory on what that is.

6) Is a published author, which is also groundbreaking for an adult star as well. https://www.amazon.com/Fit-As-Phoenix-120lbs-Enjoying/dp/150544540X

7) Also, she is already documented as working with other Notable musicians, like Chip E. the "Godfather of House Music" who is on Wikipedia as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_E. http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece.php?id=200818 https://www.jackeldphoenix.com/

Perhaps that's exactly why a previous editor already posted that her page was reviewed and had met Notability requirements which was left on the talk page for the article:

Hi, I'm Devopam. Art javier, thanks for creating Nikki Phoenix!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Article has potential and passess WP:PORNBIO. Need recommended improvements in order to make it a good read.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Devopam (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For K.e.coffman to have intentionally removed parts of the article that specifically cite her notability, and then try to nominate the article for deletion after Devopam already noted it met notability requirements and making statements using words like "Unremarkable" when a brief search of the internet shows otherwise would tend to indicate either a lack of research or a personal vendetta towards this particular page for whatever reason. However, Neither of those reasons are a valid justification for the deletion of the page, which according to other editors has already met notability requirements.

This type of vindictive behavior is precisely why I took a long break from Wikipedia, as I have found a number of editors who do not adhere to the concepts clearly listed: Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution

And more importantly are not Editors, they are simply Deletors, who simply delete hard work made by other editors for whatever their own personal reasons may be. An Editor would do research and add relevant material, or ask for it to be researched and cited.

Art javier (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diwan Rahul Nanda[edit]

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

The 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. Previously prodded by User:discospinster. Most sources are routine buisness coverage of some companies he is involved in. He won some awards that don't seem to confer notability. Successful businessperson, sure, but encyclopedic? I think not. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick check for additional sources brings up these - [43] [44] [45] [46] - which in conjuction with the sources in the current article clearly meets GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are heavily based on interview/PR materials; those Indian newspapers have really low standards, just a step above PR reporting. Third source mentions him in passing, and fourth, not at all. I am not impressed by those new sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fourth does mention him - search. It isn't all interviews. Regarding Indian journalism standards - I won't argue, however Economic Times (which is why I selected it) is relatively high inside the Indian sphere. If you're going to throw out all Indian sources - there's a whole lot of Afds coming. Nanda has ongoing coverage - the article is with sources mostly up to 2011 - The sources I provided arc up to 2015.Icewhiz (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, subject just isn't notable. Ifnord (talk) 16:33, 13 April 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. Black Kite (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegrin-Albanian Conflicts[edit]

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

Original research. Theme not present in RS. Zoupan 15:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the article creator, Dzepo4 has been found to be a sockpuppet. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is notable. I'm not sure what the nom means exactly by "Theme not present in RS". The sources cited in the existing article are reliable. If they have been mishandled by a banned user (I didn't check other than to see that the topic is present in the works), that's not a reason to delete the article. The title should perhaps be changed to better describe the topic, maybe even the scope broadened to Albanian–Montenegrin relations, but those are separate discussions to have. Srnec (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Srnec I do not see a series of clashes and battles between the Kingdom of Montenegro and Albanian highlanders and Ottoman irregulars, mostly from the Vilayet of Kosovo, and the League of Prizren. The conflicts stretched from the 1850s to 1945 in any of the works as a theme. It is a synthesization of Malissori rebellions with later unconnected conflicts (Balkan Wars and World War II), presenting Montenegro as an invader/occupier and Albanians as persecuted and patriots. The article is terribly off. It should not be kept.--Zoupan 04:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research and heavy POV present throughout the article, sources are used selectively and maliciously in order to support the author's bias. Also, as noted already, the article tries to connect entirely different and unrelated historical events into a single narrative which presents the two nations as enemies, with Montenegro being portrayed as a villain in the relation. In short, the article has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Sideshow Bob 13:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- While this is far from being a good article, I am not sure that it is so bad that it needs to be deleted. It ought to be possible to produce a NPOV article on this subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Fails NPOV. We have articles on List of wars involving Albania and List of wars involving Montenegro. Focusing just on those conflicts between the two countries seems to focus on the POV of the article creator that conflicts between these two countries from 1850 to 1945 should be grouped in this way, and I don't see reliable sources that agree. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the grouping is a POV. I think it just follows from the sources. The period in question is one of upheaval in the Balkans. It is also the period in which Albania really comes into being and Montenegro joins the international community. To me, it doesn't make much sense to talk about Montenegrin–Albanian conflict in a period before there were clear Montenegrin and Albanian identities, or before the border between the two became a rigid international one. The article may need a lot of work, but I hate to see an article on obscure but real events (clashes between tribesmen and sometimes regular soldiers in the border region between Montenegro and Albania during the rise of Balkan nationalisms and the decline of the Ottoman Empire) deleted because it needs a lot of work and that work is hard to do. Srnec (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an expert, but my concern is grouping conflicts between the Principality of Montenegro and the Albanians under Ottoman rule in the 1850s up to the 1880s, the Balkan War, WWI, WWII, and "Modern Times". I think it would be more sensible to write one article about the first, pre-Albanian independence period and a second, post-Albanian independence article about Montenegro-Albanian relations (similar to Albania–Serbia relations or Kosovo–Montenegro relations). The bulk of this article is the former, and such an article could end with mention of post-independence conflicts. I don't know if the Balkan War is more similar to the earlier conflicts or the later, but grouping the 1850s-1880 conflict seems to match fairly well with the Reid 2000 reference. I've struck my vote in anticipation of either your showing that the post-1912 conflicts are grouped with pre-1912 conflicts (as opposed to conflict just being a normal aspect of political relations between European neighbors) or your agreeing with focusing this article on the pre-1912 conflicts (and particularly c1850-c1880) and splitting the rest into an article about post-independence bilateral relations (in this case, I am happy/willing to help develop both articles). Let me know what you (or others) think. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason I forgot your first proposal that the article perhaps be renamed "Montenegrin-Albanian relations". Rather than make a different proposal, I've struck what I just wrote. I !vote Keep, and if the article is kept, will develop and discussing the article's at the article. I'm fine if the outcome of the AfD is rename; even if it isn't I agree with Srnec that content issues can be dealt with within the regular editing process. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been working on this article on my computer all day and I just can't seem to turn it into something NPOV without more or less rewriting it completely. As I said in my first struck comment, I'd be happy to help write an article on post-independence bilateral relations and possibly another on conflicts from the 1850s. But I don't think this article works for me as a starting point for either of those. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:56, 16 April 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. MBisanz talk 01:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012 Tibetan protests in Sichuan[edit]

January 2012 Tibetan protests in Sichuan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel like this article fails WP:NOTE as the event never was not very significant. Also, the article only contains one linked source that doesn't detail much actual action that occurred. I guess this also falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Kamalthebest (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's extensive sourcing on the equivalent Chinese article. More recent news items also show lasting impact, e.g. [47][48]. Deryck C. 10:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and could definitely use some expansion from the corresponding Chinese article. --NoGhost (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist 14:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Six or Seven Times[edit]

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

This article does not demonstrate that "Six or Seven Times" has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." It has only one source -- Catalog of Copyright Entries. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Song written by an iconic composer with recorded versions by at least two American Jazz icons. My google search finds the Calloway version of the song was in the Billboard charts (pre-“Top 40” era) for multiple weeks in 1931, peaking at #14. While it is true this article may not show significant evidence of “multiple, non-trivial, published works…etc…,” per our normal criteria (after all, were talking 1931 here) it’s worth remembering that WP guidelines are just that: guidelines. They are not rules meant to be seen as absolute, unbending standards. There is flexibility in determining a topic’s encyclopedic value, subject to these debates. My argument is that a wiki page for this song is of benefit to, say, someone doing deep background research on the discographies of two notable recording artists. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am finding several books on Google Bools alone covering this song at least to some extent, such as [49], [50], [51]], [52] and [53]. It seems extremely likely that alot more was written about it over the past 85 years that is not easily accessible. Rlendog (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above sources and comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decibel Therapeutics[edit]

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

This page is apparently part of a social experiment on Wikipedians. See User:Marinamano/subpage User admits an undisclosed conflict of interest. Mduvekot (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFTOPIC background about the class project
Train2104 It's both. The assignment was to study the behavior of supposedly hostile Wikipedians towards newcomers. Note that the essay specifically highlights our behavioral guideline on welcoming newcomers, but fails to mention our policy on verifiability. Their purpose was not to make a contribution but to study our adherence to our guidelines and to do so without giving full disclosure intentions and methodology, and without gaining our consent. I offered to help fix the problems with this article, but found that Marinamano never responded to my offer, but now do acknowledge that they received it while avoiding mentioning me directly. I only noticed the post because I found many similar pages by other participants in the course while I looked at their contributions. Should they have been interested in addressing the issues with this article, they could have accepted my offer. By implicitly declining my offer, they have acknowledged that they are not interested in improving the article. This article has no realistic chance of ever being improved and should be deleted. Mduvekot (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mduvekot: Interesting observations, I stand corrected. Also see the syllabus. In light of the COI issues and weak notability I was planning on !voting delete anyway, but this solidifies it. I have no idea what the proper process to go through for human subjects "research" on WP users is (not that one user's experience is anywhere near a representative sample), but doing it in this manner just doesn't seem right. All of the pages created for this course should probably be looked at – Train2104 (t • c) 19:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Fails GNG by a mile. Please don't waste your time figuring out where this came from; the class has already wasted a ton of the community's time. Please just deal with this article here. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 7 April 201
  • delete : I proposed deletion before and it hasn't improved; it is a conflicted construction for an entity that fails WP:GNG. - Bri (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Train2104: If you mean to !vote delete, could you please do so below? I'm afraid it might be missed. - Bri (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Donovan (reporter)[edit]

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Another weak 'reporter in big time market' article which doesn't even meet WP:RESUME (a relief for once) and just sources to his bio and the usual regional Emmy story. This needs much more to stay here. Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist 14:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalist realism[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm new here, so I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem to meet notability standards. TheDracologist (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I can only assume that the nominator has no access to Google or a library. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Capitalist realism is a real thing, if used somewhat tongue-in-cheek by some of Germany's most notable artists, including Gerhard Richter. Mduvekot (talk) 05:31, 9 April 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 Australia–North Korea relations. MBisanz talk 01:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Ambassadors to North Korea[edit]

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

this is a list when there has only been one ever resident ambassador to North Korea, and that was only for 6 months. otherwise the ambassador has been located in Beijing, and we don't create lists of non resident ambassadors. any pertinent info can be Australia–North Korea relations. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:28, 8 April 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. Mkdw talk 21:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belize Archaeology Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews including for alternate name. gets 1 hit for travel book listing in gbooks for its name and alternate name. and 1 small mention in gscholar for alternate name. complete lack of significant coverage. those wanting to keep must demonstrate existence of coverage. this is not a clean up, this is a clear discussion of the notability of this museum. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: After multiple searches, I found no significant coverage. I do think you should be notifying page creators when you nominate stuff for deletion which I don't think you ever do. SL93 (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've notified User:Dr. Blofeld, the creator of the article. – Joe (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep kudos to Aymatth2 for the expansion. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After stellar work by Aymatth2 expanding and finding additional sources. – Joe (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As pseudo-national museum of Belize and per the great work done by Aymatth2. Ravendrop 20:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I've tried to withdraw this afd but someone has reversed it. [54]. LibStar (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @LibStar: As I indicated in the edit summary, WP:WITHDRAWN clearly states that "if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it". If you want to withdraw your nomination you should strike it out or leave a comment, not close the AfD. – Joe (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Public museums are generally going to be notable; weaker articles should be tagged but usually not AFD'd. An AFD will usually turn out to be forcing a clean up, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP and it is not right to impose upon the community of AFD editors in this way, in my opinion. Also I noted the AFD nominator has failed to notify article creators in other AFDs. --doncram 15:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Museum of Belize. This is supposed to be the same museum, just a new location. Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw no reference in the sources to moving the Museum of Belize to Belmopan. If the national museum in Belmopan is ever built, the Museum of Belize in Belize City is unlikely to close. Belize City is where the tourists are. I see the new one as being based on the Institute of Archaeology collection. There is this source, which says the Belize City museum is inadequate and there is a need for a new National Museum in Belmopan, but I do not read that as saying the old Museum of Belize would be moved. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after the improvements --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:08, 14 April 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 snow keep, clearly meets the policy--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen at the 2012 Summer Olympics[edit]

Yemen at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG requirement --David Tornheim (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't familiar with WP:NOLYMPICS. I must scratch my head at that standard that every year a country participates in the Olympics constitutes a full article. With 196 countries and Olympics every 2-4 years, that is potentially a lot of articles about just the Olympics. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every other nation has a 'x at the y z Games' article. Sourcing is good enough and I'm not willing to set a precedent that sees other countries lose articles just because their athletes didn't medal. Nate • (chatter) 04:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOLYMPICS: "Nations participating at an individual Summer [...] Olympic [...] Games are considered notable" OZOO 06:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOLYMPICS and mandatory drugs test for the nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOLYMPICS Nimrodbr (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:NOLYMPICS, which clearly says these articles are notable. Let's stop wasting everybody's time and close this now. Smartyllama (talk) 13:19, 7 April 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 speedily deleted by User:Premeditated Chaos under criterion G4. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 20:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neighbor[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTGUIDE Lil Johnny (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete: Per being closed as delete in the last AfD. I tagged it for speedy deletion. SL93 (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Lemnaru[edit]

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

Ex-mayor of a relatively small provincial city; scant coverage, and most of that routine; patently fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BASIC. - Biruitorul Talk 01:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Onești is not large or prominent enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL just for existing, but the referencing here (which consists of just one piece of reliable source coverage and one primary source report) is nowhere near enough to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough reliable independent sources to justify notability per WP:GNG. Tzsagan (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Accessibility of National Parks in the United States[edit]

Financial Accessibility of National Parks in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Combination of POV pushing and an index of park fees (WP:NOTTRAVEL), neither of which belong on Wikipedia. (another student essay by the same group) – Train2104 (t • c) 01:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy per nom. Topic itself may be suitable for inclusion, but the article's current form is not the way to do it. After reviewing the talk page, it would appear neither of the instructors raised concern over neutrality, but rather encouraged such POV; which is both disconcerting and deeply unfortunate. One may wish to keep an eye on other sandboxed/draft articles emanating from this Wiki Edu project as several waiting in the hopper are equally biased as this one up for discussion. -- dsprc [talk] 23:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely selective merge to National Park Service. There are a couple of good references, and they could go to make up a paragraph in the main article. Otherwise delete as POV-pushing. StAnselm (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT This entire topic is WP:OR from nps.gov - the title "Financial Accessibility" is OR, article is full of unsourced POV like "Accessibility to national parks can decrease during this administration because President Trump has threatened to defund the National Parks Service. This would cause the National Parks to become more expensive to visit, through increase in entrance or yearly fees, or in some cases even shutting down National Parks. Our national parks are becoming increasingly vulnerable to destruction as climate change will negatively impact the ecosystems of many of our National Parks." Seraphim System (talk) 05:47, 14 April 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 Fleming Stadium. Rough consensus that this topic does not deserve an article. (non-admin closure) feminist 14:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Baseball Museum[edit]

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

This article has been speedied twice under A7 and G11, but has now been recreated for the second time. Of the 4 sources now provided in the article, only one could be considered significant independent coverage, and this is only from a local news organisation (not sufficient under WP:NCORP). Thoroughly unencyclopedic and not notable. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and salt clearly fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have seen articles about this museum from multiple sources through the years. With a little research, it should easily pass notability guidelines. Kinston eagle (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fleming Stadium article. I don't feel that the museum itself is particularly notable for it's own article but the content can be retained on the stadium article. Spanneraol (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planernaya Railway Station[edit]

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

This article has no references. It appears to not meet the standards in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Buildings and objects. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 7 April 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. Mkdw talk 21:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Abraham (wrestler)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG ThatGirlTayler (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:34, 7 April 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. Mkdw talk 21:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sonya Strong[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 00:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 00:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with nominator, does not meet GNG.  MPJ-DK  10:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - with four sources (one of them being from social media), it clearly fails GNG. Nickag989talk 16:31, 8 April 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. — CharlotteWebb 11:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Brown, Jr.[edit]

This page is unnecessary because this character has only appeared in a few Family Guy episodes. The character does not deserve his own page. Jayorz12 05:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - He is a part of the show, I think it is notable enough for an article on him. Chris Kreider 18:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After reviewing the way other characters are handled, I agree with Chrislk02's assessment. It makes no sense for Cleveland Jr. to be limited to the List of characters from Family Guy page when we have pages for each of the Goldmans and Joe Swanson's son. →bobby← 19:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Cleveland Jr. is much more minor than the Swanson son, who has been featured in specific episodes as being pivotal, so I have to vote weak on this. The article does jump around a bit (perhaps on purpose?), so the structure might need reworking. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_April_7&oldid=1142620049"