Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 December	28 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Schlossberg[edit]

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

Scholossberg is a 1st year law student, who wrote for his college paper as an undergrad, helped some of his high school friends organize volunteer efforts, got photographed a few times because his mom was an ambassador, and got a bunch of human interest and tabloid coverage as afterglow from very famous relatives. He has done absolutely nothing that even comes close to making him notable, and the coverage is not at all of a level to establish notability. I know this has gone through discussions before, but they have all ignored the rule that we write articles based on the preesent not on possible future situations, and at present Schlossberg is a non-notable law student. This may change in the future, but he is non-notable at present. They were also under the old name of this article, which makes it a bit confusing. I accidentally at first created this as number 4. I also do not know how to link the previous 3 or so nominations to this one. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing has changed from the previous AfDs except new additional sources have been added. This is a notable individual for all the reasons laid out over the course of many years by dozens of editors in multiple AfDs and DRVs. The nom believes "He has done absolutely nothing that makes him notable" .. he has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Notability is not an award for achievement, anyone can be notable for any reason, including public and press interest. -- GreenC 14:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy gets even more coverage now than he did in previous years when I participated in some of the past deletion discussions for him. I just clicked the NEWS link at the top of this AFD and see results from as recent as Nov 17, 2017 from People magazine where he talks about climate change. Please stop wasting time trying to delete this. It meets the requirements for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 15:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable socialite; does not appear to have achieved anything significant. The article is full of trivia, such as:

"On April 10, 2016, he and Caroline greeted the then U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry who arrived at the Iwakuni Marine Corps Air Station..." Etc.

Being on a best-dressed list is not a claim of significance. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a society page in a newspaper. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I am a bit swayed by K.e.coffman's comments, as I agree just being a socialite isn't enough, there's considerable mention in press of this individual. Notability isn't inherited, to be sure. While he hasn't done anything notable yet, he does attract considerable attention in the press [1]. This is a sufficient pass per WP:GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think five AfDs and 2 DRVs says the community has well-considered this topic. I looked no further than one DRV, where I found this comment, "The delete voters did not address the sources presented and only argued against the non-existent opinion of "he's notable because he's a Kennedy." [2] Unscintillating (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note There are two concurrent nominations here. I have requested an administrator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg (4th nomination). Unscintillating (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following two keep/delete recommendations were moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg (4th nomination). The other AfD is a duplicate and concurrent AfD nomination, and these recommendations were moved to merge the two AfDs.

Keep - People may only notice him because of his relations and physical appearance and he may have done nothing particularly remarkable, but he has enough coverage in independent reliable sources ([3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]) to pass WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --WP:TOOSOON if ever. WP is not the Social Register Rhadow (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the subject qualify as a model? No. As an academic? No. As a social entrepreneur? No. The argument is that he earned notability by the quantity of press he gets -- press he wouldn't get but for the other seven people mentioned in the piece. Rhadow (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kennedy family is America's "royalty". He is active in noble things (philanthropy, etc.) which seals the deal as far as his "nobility".desmay (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty? "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States". Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution

[12] Jack Schlossberg · 7/1/2016 - 11/30/2017 · 659,116 pageviews. In the years before then the page had a different name, so more views then as well. He gets coverage for quite a large variety of things, not just passing mention because of who his famous relative was. Dream Focus 02:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so now the argument is this: he has a Wikipedia article, therefore he is notable. That is circular logic of the first order. Rhadow (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable because he clearly passes WP:GNG. I just thought that an interesting fact, how many people come here to read about him. Dream Focus 12:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It gets 1000 to 4000 views a day or 100s of thousands a year, plus it would create a couple hundred red backlinks which would be disruptive. The last AfD was closed by User:Sandstein with this prophetic message: the chance to obtain a "delete" consensus in any future nomination appears remote in the extreme. This remains true and John Pack Lambert was a participant in that AfD and should take heed. It's wasting everyone's time and becoming disruptive. -- GreenC 16:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"it would create a couple hundred red backlinks" -- Now the argument is that incumbency trumps the innate notability of the subject. I'll remember that. Rhadow (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability "argument" for keep is WP:GNG as noted in the Keep votes. -- GreenC 16:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would create a bunch of red backlinks because his name's been put on a bunch of templates. I don't know how many pages he's actually linked from. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons that can also be seen in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lincoln Beckwith, sometimes - not often, but sometimes, just being a scion gets you sufficient attention in WP:RS to carry you past WP:GNG. Even though you have never "done" anything.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 13:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2014[edit]

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

Duplicated at List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s. No reason to cover the same information by year-by-year. –dlthewave ☎ 23:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- looks like all the information is already in the other article, so no need for a merge.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we've had a bit of an issue with redirects being reverted so it's best to just delete these content forks (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, & 2017). The main article has plenty of room for expansion, and since it is date specific, there won't be any need for spin-offs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a content fork. The by-year format was the default style for years but improved upon by User:Holiday56 about 5 years ago in this decade format. It's time to settle on just one. I wouldn't mind seeing the same done with List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s and List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2014 and that lot, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk • contribs) 10:55, December 28, 2017 (UTC)
Delete as copyvio. This is Billboard's intellectual property, a creative work that we do not have the right to reproduce in full, even with credit. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 30 December 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. A Train^talk 21:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Zitron[edit]

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

Non-notable PR person. All sources are lacking in actual coverage. Almost everything I can find is a passing mention or written by the subject. Fails GNG and pretty much everything... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A preliminary WP:BEFORE showed simply passing mentions or one-off quotes. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Looks like one of his PR specialties is writing wikipedia articles to promote.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable PR man.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most references are articles written by the subject. No in depth coverage. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – sources do not have in depth coverage about the subject or work that he has done that is of significant value to public relations. Fails WP:GNG. CookieMonster755 ✉ 20:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AdWeek/Business Insider gave him awards for his accomplishments in his industry.[13][14] He also has a unique style and is an author.desmay (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 13:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magane[edit]

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

WP:NMUSIC In ictu oculi (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate that this is/was a prominent band as required by WP:MUSICBIO. Mattg82 (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NMUSIC and WP:MUSICBIO. Lack of reliable/independent sources. Lack of notable achievements.desmay (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 13:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bidemi Afolabi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - No first-team appearances for Bray as the infobox suggests - as per the article itself, he made six appearances and scored four goals, but for the club's under-19 side, not the first team. Only other first-team appearances were for Oxford City, Wantage Town and Burnham, all non-League teams in England. No evidence of notability. Montgomery15 (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:FOOTBALL and WP:GNG. It reads like it has been written by someone close to with a lot of WP:PEACOCK language in it. Only has one reference which is now dead and can't find a lot else about him. NZFC^(talk) 04:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails our ridiculously low notability hurdle for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. WP:TOOSOON. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- this page contains information of a professional athlete of although low profile , still relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.121.23 (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth pointing out that the IP user above has made several edits to the page of the person in question but appears to have some connection to him - be that as a friend, a family member, a former teammate, doesn't really matter. To address their comment - he is not, nor has he ever been, a professional athlete; semi-professional, yes, but as per the notability guidelines we use, he is not considered notable if he has only ever played at semi-professional level. If he ever makes an appearance in League Two, for example, he will warrant his own article; as it happens, his only first-team experience has been in the Southern League and Conference South. I hope this clears up the issue of his article being nominated for deletion. Montgomery15 (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably worth noting that the sole 'keep' thus far comes from the COI IP account, who after blanking this page, admitted that the subject isn't notable [15]. This is a textbook WP:SNOW. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No source for a BLO. Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2018 (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) 11:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unlikely to attract sufficient support for deletion with any subsequent relists. Merge discussion can continue on talk pages if desired. A Train^talk 21:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1956–57 Bahraini Premier League[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NSEASONS:~~ the Bahraini Premier League is not a fully professional league per WP:FPL. These largely unreferenced season lists for a semi-professional league fail WP:NOTSTAT and don't show any hope of meeting WP:GNG. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC) (edited: 15:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All as per nom. Also wikipedia is not a stats directory.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Fails WP:NSEASONS and as above Wikipedia isn't for stats. Merge and Keep So appears I have being interpreting NSeasons wrong so have struck my vote. Reading the below I do believe a whole lot of seasons (before 2008/09) should be merged into the one article seeing as they only have the one reference too then the later ones that contain more information, those can have their own individual article. NZFC^(talk) 04:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~Speedy keep~~ Keep, but I am considering whether merge or not. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC) @Rusf10, NZ Footballs Conscience, and Tavix:These articles are league seasons articles not a team seasons ones, so please see WP:SPORTSEVENT not WP:NSEASONS. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC) per Number 57. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhhhhkohhhhh: I think you need to read both WP:NSEASONS and WP:SPORTSEVENT again as these are clearly seasons of football leagues and not sports events like bowl games or NFL playoffs. NZFC^(talk) 09:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NZ Footballs Conscience: WP:NSEASONS says:

Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements.

Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.

For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US college or university's football and fencing teams enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a significantly greater amount of coverage):

A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable.
A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable
A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable.
For programs considered elite in a sport (e.g. Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome (the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline).
In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article.

I do not see something about league seasons. Do you find something about this? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Nominator has misunderstood WP:NSEASONS – it's for team season articles, not league season articles (its correct application is for AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Woking F.C. season). We have thousands of articles on league seasons that aren't fully-professional (just have a look at {{2016–17 in European football (UEFA)}} for a start – many of these leagues are semi-pro). @NZ Footballs Conscience and Rusf10: You may want to reconsider your !votes. Number 5 7 12:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator may have reference the wrong policy, but is there the existence of a policy that says seasons for leagues that are not top-tier get articles like this? And this still falls under WP:NOTDIR as a stats directory, so I'm going to stay with delete.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10:But this league is currently top-tier. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhhhhkohhhhh: See WP:FPL, the Bahraini Premier League is not fully professional, which is the standard used for football-related articles. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: Although this tournment is not fully professional, they need to keep as too many tournments are not fully professional and they also have league season article. 2015–16, 2016–17 and 2017–18 have enough references. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhhhhkohhhhh: Without appealing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, can you explain why all these should be kept? WP:GNG states there needs to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". One reference to goalzz.com definitely isn't "enough references" to meet that standard. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: I just watched these article again, I think before 2008–09 should be merge into one article because these article all lead to one source, but after 2009–10, these article should keep because I think these articles are vauleable and most articles have enough reference (including league table source). Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think these articles are vauleable See WP:VALUABLE for an explanation why that argument should be avoided. most articles have enough reference Simply having references isn't enough to keep an article, it needs to be shown that the references convey significant coverage independent of the subject per WP:GNG. Do you feel the references do that? -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: On the other hand, the rest of your !vote seems to be based off of WP:OSE. Put WP:NSEASONS aside, that seems to be a red herring for you, why should Wikipedia host these largely unreferenced season lists for a semi-professional league? If they're properly sourced and pass WP:GNG, sure, but I don't see these coming anywhere close to that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is a valid argument for keeping articles when others of similar stature exist; as far as I'm aware we have season articles for virtually all top divisions (see the UEFA template above) – there's no reason to single out Bahrain for deletion, potentially other that SYSTEMATICBIAS due to the lack of available sources in English. The red herring comment is poor – NSEASONS was originally your only deletion rationale, yet it's clearly an invalid argument. Professional status is entirely irrelevant here – it's only used to determine notability for players, managers and club season articles. Every one of these articles I checked has a reference (the RSSSF). Number 5 7 16:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, OSE is not a valid argument because we are not discussing those other articles, we are discussing the Bahraini Premier League seasons. It is entirely possible that some, most, or all of the other articles you reference should also be deleted for similar reasons. I have no idea because I haven't evaluated them. (It's also why OSE shows up in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.) Regarding NSEASONS, you're arguing based on a technicality (team vs. league) when the same rationale applies, in that "season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory." A single reference to the RSSSF does not qualify as meeting notability guidelines. If there are other sources I'm not seeing that do show notability, please, provide them. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well we'll have to agree to disagree; OSE is clearly a valid argument here IMO considering that we have top division season articles for virtually every other country (note the comment at WP:OSE: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."). And the claim that my NSEASONS argument is a technicality is a nonsense; the guideline is only there to refer to team seasons! Anyway, I've made my point and don't want to waste any more time on this, so I'll let other editors comment and the closing admin decide. Number 5 7 16:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, you haven't explained why you feel OSE is being used "correctly". In other words, why do you think we should consistently provide lists of this nature rather than consistently exclude them? Out of curiosity, I want to take my query a step further: why do you feel league seasons should be treated so differently than team seasons? I provided the rationale behind WP:NSEASONS in my previous comment, do you not think these season lists meet that rationale? There isn't any meaningful prose in any of these lists—certainly not well-sourced prose. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It lack of in-depth coverage in English does not mean it did not have in-depth coverage in Arabic in order to pass WP:GNG. As i know English football had dig way too much to the tier 10 counting from the top, and they definitively not pro and the Bahrain top division have much more coverage than those English lower tier league in their respective native language. Matthew_hk t c 17:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? For example, the Arabic Wikipedia article for the Bahraini Premier League does not offer much as far as references go. I'm really happy you know English football, but let's stay on task here. What's being nominated is not English football. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the database of back issue of Arabic newspaper of 1950s, but typing ""الدوري البحريني ", "الدوري البحريني الممتاز", the google show up the fixture and result. And looking at the search result it is readily available, for example [16] (by Al-Wasat) and this by Sky News Arabia. 19:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Newspapers published in Bahrain offers several Bahraini newspapers, that might be a good place to start. What you've posted helps establish that the league exists, which isn't in question. However, I don't see those links as significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should you be the one to go through 5,820 results of "site:alwasatnews.com" and "الدوري البحريني " to prove inside the search result, which not all of them really about the league, but if it existed, they All were not significant coverage? Matthew_hk t c 19:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't analyzed all of those results in great detail, but I would presume most of it would be WP:ROUTINE coverage, which is not sufficient basis for an article. Should I be the one? No, because I'm not the one making these claims. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:FPL has nothing to do with this, it's about players and managers, not about leagues themselves and their seasons. Enough sources exist for this TOP league and deleting it would mean just systemic bias and discrimination. Linhart (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all of the artiles going up an including the 1996–97 season to Bahraini Premier League. There isn't enough coverage or content to secure notability for these articles. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Inter&anthro: But acticles after 2009–10 season is different from before 2008–09 ones. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as these are sub-pages of the clearly-notable Bahraini Premier League, notability shouldn't be a factor. Verifiability would be; if there is truly no coverage of this league the pages should be deleted. Based on the amount of coverage at 2016–17 Gibraltar Premier Division I assume reliable sources will exist for the Bahraini league as well, though probably in Arabic. If this is held open another week I will try to find some (despite not speaking Arabic); I personally feel the links by Matthew_hk should be enough, at least for recent seasons. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LaundryPizza03 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Billboard Alternative Albums of 2014[edit]

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

I mistakenly nominated the wrong article. Please remove from AFD. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 22:57, 27 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Aponte[edit]

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

To be honest, i do not find the remarkableness of this article, because in any case, his only notable participation was in "11-11: En mi cuadra nada cuadra", and since then he has only had minor roles in telenovelas. Philip J Fry / talk 22:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has one source, which is not a reliable source. It is high time that every article with only IMDb be nominated for deletion, and only ones where another source is added be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 28 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2016[edit]

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

Already have a comprehensive list that has plenty of room for expansion at List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Entire article is duplicated at List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s, and I don't see any potential for expansion. Might be able to salvage a few references. –dlthewave ☎ 22:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Quickfingers (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same content already exists at List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s so this article is merely a content fork. Ajf773 (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. This is Billboard's intellectual property, a creative work that we do not have the right to reproduce in full, even with credit. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 30 December 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 close. AfD discussion is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2016 (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2016[edit]

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

Already have a more comprehensive list that has plenty of room to expand at List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 28 December 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 Some Kind of Monster (film). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Towle[edit]

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

One source, which looks like a PR piece (i.e. churnalism). Google turns up little else. PR bios here and there, unrelated people with the same name. Previously kept due to his association with Metallica, but this is basically WP:BLP1E. Notability is asserted by association, but with no credible independent sources to allow a properly WP:BLP-compliant article. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N, promotional, also notability not inherited. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that this article survived a deletion attempt 10 years ago just shows how much our standards of inclusion were junk back then. Even if Towle were an actor, one role in one film would not be enough, especially since the film being notable seems questionable. Having roles in more of documentary films is even less likely to be shown to on its own make someone notable. Nothing here shows notability, and this article would have been deleted 10 years ago if editors back then had actually used even a little good judgements. Some, but too few did, and in the process they bequethed to us a huge mess of barely manageable articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. One example of decent coverage ([17]), plus plenty of other sources of various usefulness ([18], [19], [20], [21], and plenty more discussing him in relation to the Metallica film). Not really a BLP1E, the film is just the thing that gave him the most coverage. Even if we don't keep this as a standalone article, a merge and redirect to Some Kind of Monster (film) would be in order. --Michig (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 14:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Ali Shah[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. The article appears to be purely promotional and non-encyclopaedic. sami ^talk 21:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this promotional BLP. There is some press coverage, but the coverage seems to be related to different person. --Saqib (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PT and The Nation says him 'renowned motivational speaker'. This isn't enough to pass WP:GNG because they are passing mentions only. We surely can verify currently so we can assume there maybe some sources in local language. Störm (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles are not kept based on assumed sources, only on identfied sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 29 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazia Ali[edit]

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

Biography of a "novelist" whose two books are a cookbook and a first novel, both self-published via XLibris. The sources are a British Bangladeshi "who's who", a directory where anyone can buy an entry and where content is supplied by the subject, and a piece in a small-circulation newspaper for the British Bangladeshi community which is pretty obvious PR. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet general notability or notability for authors.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure of BLP rules, which exist to keep us from Wikipedia being turned into Linkedin. Some days it seems we are loosing that fight.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her books, whose WP links point circularly to the article itself all show single-digit holdings in WorldCat. This is a fan page or booster page. Agree with JPL. Seems more and more that WP is devolving toward becoming a directory of all of humanity. Agricola44 (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable author....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete মাখামাখি (talk) 14:59, 31 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John H. LaDue, Jr[edit]

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

Delete Fails the criteria for notability, reads like a resumé, fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 28 December 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. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as A7, G11. (non-admin closure) K.e.coffman (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Audio[edit]

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

Delete Written like an advert, fails WP:SPIP. No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promotional 'cruft on a service company of no notability. I requested such, let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 28 December 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. This is way too fast since the last nomination, and since nothing has changed, consensus being that the subject met the GNG, there really is no point in doing this again--per SNOW. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Busby[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL, with no independent notability outside of role as an unelected write-in candidate. Mélencron (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as creator. Meets WP:GNG, therefore NPOL is not relevant. His candidacy garnered a lot of relatively detailed coverage (WaPo, TIME, etc). And it's not a WP:BLP1E situation either, as there's coverage about him as a sculptor, cited in the article, predating his candidacy. The "Southern Living" article and video is quite in-depth; together with the election-related coverage we do have enough substance for an article. Sandstein 21:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Why are we renominating this after 1 month? —cnzx (talk • contribs) 22:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The result of this article's previous nomination was keep. Following discussion, the result was that the article met General notability guidelines. The editors who argued for this included: the article's creator, JAMillerKC, Kiernanmc, HighFlyingFish, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and a few others. Conversely, Bearcat gave a wonderfully articulate argument for delete (as did several others to a lesser degree). This nomination would best be served by WP:BEFORE prior to reviving a previous discussion. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 22:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. MB298 (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017. The election was notable, not the candidate.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- He has been established as being notable for other things. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has been defined as meeting WP:GNG and thus WP:NPOL is irrelevant. Renomination so soon could be seen as disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior discussion. The election result doesn't change that he meets GNG. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:51, 28 December 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 List of Big Brother 18 housemates (UK). If her other work takes off and has more coverage in sources, we can restore the article then. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Jane[edit]

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

Delete or Redirect to List of Big Brother 18 housemates (UK) No indications that this person meet the criteria for notability. Article has been tagged since 2015 with no improvements. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided, but leaning towards keep There is a lot of the coverage on the subject, and a lot is unrelentingly tabloidy, (multiple mentions in the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Mirror) but after doing a bit of work on the article (found refs for most info in non tabloid papers), there is sustained coverage over a few years (so not just relating to BigBrother) regarding her company, although they do tend towards interview style articles. There is mention of her in a parliamentary discussion on changes to UK laws regarding online catfishing, a campaign she's involved in, which could be regarded as notable. However it does appear that the original article may have been an autobiography; it was created by spa acc, Golden pr, which is also the name of a company linked to the subject.Curdle (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman and reality show contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete with redirect. scope_creep (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Bate[edit]

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

no apparent notability as broadcaster ,business executive, or politician. Never aa member of a legislature. Never President of a company, two trivial awards--Medal of the OA is the lowest level in Australia, awarded in unlimited numbers. The references are many announcements,or primarily about other people, or organizations. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable sources listed. Genome$100 (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No actual claim to notability in the article, given that the OA does not confer notability. No significant coverage in multiple independent sources, as far as I can find. --bonadea contributions talk 09:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from talk page:
I have not contributed previously, although I am a frequent user of, and regular donor to, WP.
I was surprised to see negative comments about Russell Bate, whom I have come to know reasonably well over many years and in various capacities. We can all have issues with people but I fail to see how any of this rather short bio entry could possibly be controversial.
Mr Bate was a very successful business executive and, since his retirement, has devoted considerable time and personal resources to a rather impressive range of community issues and concerns, from Musica Viva and the ABC Board to natural resource management issues, including Field & Game and the Country Alliance. He is not a time-server: he is a contributor, and highly valued. His service to the Jamieson community through his local school support and his long service in local government has been quite outstanding.
I became aware of Mr Bate's contribution in the course of my long-established role of Editor-in-Chief of the McPherson Newspaper Group, a family business based in Shepparton, northern Victoria for the last 130 years. Although my contact with Mr Bate has not been substantial or regular, my staff and I would regard him as an outstanding and accomplished citizen, one who uses his skills, knowledge and contacts to bring considerable value to his community.
I am happy to debate Mr Bate's entry with anyone with the courage to use their name. I strongly urge you to maintain n the entry - indeed, add to it.

Best to WP for 2018

Ross McPherson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossmac654 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The comments about Bate are not negative. They are just stating the plain fact that he does not meet inclusion criteria. Nor do most people. This is not to say anything ill about him. Sadly being an upstanding citizen is not enough to gain the level of reliable source coverage to justify creating an article on someone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s. A Train^talk 01:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2015[edit]

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

Already have List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Content is duplicated at List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s. –dlthewave ☎ 22:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s as content fork. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:57, 28 December 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. A Train^talk 01:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Dearborn Partners[edit]

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

Delete A private equity firm that has been involved in transactions with notable companies but does not appear to be notable itself. Notability is not inherited. There are no intellectually independent references with independent analysis and/or opinion and most references are based on company announcements, fails WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ I see coverage of some of their deals, but no significant and independent coverage of the firm.Sandals1 (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cancelling my delete vote. I'm still not sure that it meets WP:GNG, but I'm not as sure as I was. FloridaArmy's argument seems to claim notability because of who they've worked with, but that seems like inheriting notability to me. Toohool's sources are better, but repeatedly sourcing Crain's Chicago Business only counts as one source and local coverage.Sandals1 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable private equite firm. Substantial coverage of their major deals for major companies loke Univision, LA Fitness, Yenkee Candle and Bell. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets primary criteria for notability WP:ORGCRIT. —Formal Dude^(talk) 00:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a failure of WP:BEFORE. Plenty of sources to meet GNG, such as: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. The company also has an entry in the International Directory of Company Histories, a very strong indicator of notability. Toohool (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, albeit needing improvement Chetsford (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One !voter above says that the topic meets ORGCRIT but doesn't provide any reasoning. FloridaArmy states that their major deals got substantial coverage but I notice hasn't provided any references to show that the coverage was intellectually independent and not based on company announcements (which I believe is what will be found if anyone checks). Another produced 5 references and a passive-aggressive accusation with no merit. I've looked at the references. None (not one) is intellectually independent - a key requirement for meeting the criteria for establishing notability. From reading the references, my overall impression is that the chicagobusiness articles are akin to a business gossip column with no real contant and key information provided by anonymous sources or "sources close to the company". Useless for the purposes of using the references to establish notability.Here's my analysis of the references:
- this chicagobusiness.com article provides information on the company but does not provide any *independent* analysis or opinion. The opinions provided in this article are qualified as follows: "Most observers agree", anonymous, doesn't meet the criteria. T. Bondurant French, CEO of Adams Street Partners LLC provides a quote/opinion but is not independent as it is disclosed that this firm "has invested in Madison Dearborn". Andrew W. Code, a partner of Code Hennessy & Simmons LLC also provides an opinion/quotation but again, is not independent as it is another Chicago-based private equity firm with business ties to Madison Dearborn. Also, the date of this article is July 1st 2002 and it states "The Chicago-based buyout firm's reputation is on the line as it pursues big targets like Jefferson Smurfit Group plc and Burger King Corp." ... yet the firm had already closed that deal and had been reported weeks previously. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This chicagobusiness.com reference also fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on quotations from the company and from material produced by the company. There's a quotation from Erik Gordon, a professor at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business, in which he says ... nothing of interest, certainly not an opinion or analysis ... "It's early to call it a buyer's market, but it's not too early to say that it's no longer a seller's market," said Erik Gordon, a professor at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. "To be a buyer's market, you have to have sellers who really want to sell." Since most of the material has been provided by the company and the article contains no (worthwhile/relevant) independent analysis or opinion, this reference also fails WP:ORGIND.
- This chicagobusiness.com reference also appears to rely solely on a letter produced by the company, or uses quotations from "local rivals" or analysis/opinion from an anonymous "person familiar with the firm". Without independent analysis/opinion, this reference also fails WP:ORGIND.
- This chicagotribune.com reference is based on a company announcement and recounts past deals made by the company. There is no independent analysis or opinon in the article and therefore fails WP:ORGIND.
- This chicagobusiness.com reference also contains no independent analysis or opinion. Quotations and opinions are provided by Bondurant “Bon” French, who leads Adams Street Partners LLC, and is not independent since the firm is a private-equity investor in all of Madison Dearborn's funds. Other factoids are provided by "people close to the firm" or from letters to investors. Since there's no independent analysis or opinion, this also fails WP:ORGIND.
Finally, even if one of those references from chicagobusiness.com were good, we need *two* references from *different* publications before the criteria for establishing notability would be deemed to have been met. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You use that "independent analysis or opinion" line a lot. Where exactly is that in WP:ORGIND? Toohool (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response There has been a lot of discussion in relation to the interpretation of "independent of the source" which you can find in WP:NCORP. I don't like this phrase because most editors unfamiliar with AfD interpret this to mean that the topic company and the publishing source need to be unrelated. This isn't the correct interpretation. For example, lets say the NYT (a source that meets WP:RS in every way) publishes word-for-word a press release from a topic company. Some editors would point to this and say that since the article has been published by a reliable source, it therefore counts towards notability. That is an incorrect interpretation. But what if a reliable source like the NYT doesn't publish a press release verbatim but instead publishes a story *based* on a press release - so its not word for word. These articles often use phrases like "Company XXX announced", "According to the CXO", etc. In these circumstance, WP:ORGIND provides clarification and states that any material which is substantially based on a press release is not acceptable for establishing notabilty so again (note: once notability has been established and with the usual care taken with PRIMARY sources, the contents of the press release may be used in the article - it is just that the source - any PRIMARY source - cannot be used to establish notability). Even so, it can be difficult to determine if an article is "substantially based on a press release" or other PRIMARY source and the easiest way to determine is the sources are PRIMARY or not, especially when the article extensively relies on interviews/quotations and cold facts is to look for independent analysis and/or opinion. Independent, of course, means an opinion/analysis that is a 3rd party independent opinion (provided by the journalist or an unconnected analyst for example). Without an independent analysis or opinion, an article that appears to extensively/exclusively rely on quotations or materials provided/published by the company are still PRIMARY sources and fails WP:ORGIND since the material was either substantially based on a press releaseor any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are taking some big leaps to interpret policy as what you want it to be. But confining the discussion to the subject article: It seems to me that you are claiming that all the cites linked above are primary sources, because they rely largely on primary sources linked to Madison Dearborn, and don't cite any named third-party experts. I think you are cherry-picking from WP:PSTS, which states that a secondary source "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Analysis or evaluation is not required. Synthesis is enough. All of the cites above synthesize sources, which may include, yes, press releases, but also include quotes from knowledgable parties (even if those parties are anonymous), and facts from previous reporting, and a fact-checking process that corroborates facts from multiple sources, some of which may not be explicitly cited in the article. That's enough to make them secondary sources. An article with extensive analysis/opinion will "count more" for GNG, but you cannot simply dismiss articles that don't have that. Toohool (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing sources that are acceptable for establishing notability and sources that are acceptable for verifying facts and data within an article. This isn't new - I pointed this out above. WP:GNG is the applicable policy and WP:NCORP (and in particular the sections on CORPDEPTH and ORGIND) are guidelines to assist in the interpretation of GNG in relation to organizations and companies. GNG also links to an essay on Identifying and using independent sources and makes the point Material available from sources that are self-published, primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the information that establishes the subject's real-world notability to independent, third-party sources. For the purposes of notability, an article that relies on quotations and statements attributed to company produced material is not regarded as having verified facts and is not regarded as "independent" since no opinion or analysis is provided. Similarly, synthesis is essentially PRIMARY material and is not acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability. These aren't my "big leaps" or interpretations - check our the Talk pages of many AfDs or even the Talk page at WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Synthesis is essentially primary material"? That makes zero sense. I just quoted the policy that includes synthesis as part of the definition of a secondary source. Toohool (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Searching on Google News I find coverage of the deal to sell Bolthouse to Campbell Soup, the largest deal in Campbells history, as well as another billion dollar banking deal this month and coverage of Madison is a potential buyer of PwC's government services contract business. This is a major company with lots of important business deals and ownership stakes. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseNews coverage is 99.9% likely to be based on corporate announcements. You need to post the links. See WP:GHITS. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. – Joe (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Liu[edit]

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

Delete: Although a professor in Havard with published papers in notable periodicals, the article doesn't appear to meet the criteria for notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Massive citation counts on Google Scholar [27] (h-index 68, easily passing WP:PROF#C1) and a named professorship at the Broad Institute (WP:PROF#C3) as well as earning tenure and a full professorship at Harvard (no mean feat, but not a notability criterion). Nomination statement shows no evidence of understanding WP:PROF (hint: it's not what or where you publish, it's what other academics do based on your publications) nor of checking it in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per David Eppstein. Dr. David R. Liu has very good coverage in Google Scholar. 05:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Genome$100 (talk)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 —cnzx (talk • contribs) 05:41, 28 December 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. J04n(talk page) 16:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Time (2013 film)[edit]

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

This might be a great film, but I was not able to find any sources.Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find sources. (Also, the film only runs 4 minutes.) Shearonink (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find any sources. Given the uninspiring plot, I don't believe that a further examination is warranted. It didn't appear to have any box office draws as actors so the lack of notability given its plot is not surprising.Knox490 (talk) 02:22, 31 December 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 going to delete this as the author of the main content has admitted they made it up. I’m going to do the same for Southern Han Chinese as it is now similarly suspect. No prejudice against recreation of either as redirects. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Han Chinese[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. We already have Han Chinese, and Northern Han. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Han Chinese. There is no reason why this should have its own article, when there is already the Han Chinese article.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it Since there's a paper that references the genetic differences between the Northern Han Chinese and the Southern Han Chinese, ^[1] and one about the cultural differences^[2] and further since the difference between Northern Han and Southern Han is a common topic of discussion, I think that the article meets notability guidelines. The Northern Han article is about a dynasty from the late 900's, not about the Northern Han Chinese. There's no question that Southern Han Chinese definitely meets the requirement of notability. I think Northern Han Chinese is also a legitimate concept. Han Chinese are split into a bunch of smaller groups; Northern Han Chinese is one of the larger categories.Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The research I read raised questions about the genetic differences of the Northern Han Chinese - nothing confirmed. There are genetic differences between people in general, some of which is based on environmental adaptations. I don't think we should start dividing people based on genetics and DNA mapping, especially when the research is incomplete. This article can be merged to Northern Han under a population section, and perhaps a sentence of two added to Han Chinese noting the genetic research. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are major genetic differences between Northern Italians and Southern Italians, Northern French and Southern French, Northern Vietnamese and Southern Vietnamese, Northern Spaniards and Southern Spaniards, etc. and the examples goes on, so where are these articles?--Balthazarduju (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Atsme: note that the Northern Han dynasty article isn't about the entire scope of the Northern Han people, the article you're looking for is Northern China.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atsme, did you know there is also the Southern Han Chinese, which is new as well?--Balthazarduju (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – spurious ethnic group, and content fork of Northern and southern China (not Northern Han, which is about a 10th-century kingdom). Ditto for Southern Han Chinese. Kanguole 16:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any useful material, such as it is, with Han Chinese, particularly Historical southward migration of the Han people. The subject page is also a rather poor attempt, containing little material of value in any event. sirlanz 18:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article even states: "There were several periods of mass migration of Han people to southeastern and southern China throughout history.[4] Thus most Southern Han Chinese have Northern Han ancestry.", which to me implies that the Northerner-Southerner distinction is different today from what it used to be — and then the article talks about Yuan dynasty (13th/14th centuries) and ancient DNA from 3000 years ago. I imagine we can have articles like Yuan dynasty's Four-Class System (zh:四等人制), Origins of Han Chinese, and Regional agricultures of China but I fail to see the point of this current article which talks about many different things as if they bear some relationship. Wheat and rice are not the only major agricultural crops in China - there are also sorghum, millet, and soybean regions. Timmyshin (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just made this up mostly I’ll admit.—Prisencolin (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Freedom of the City recipients[edit]

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

What could possibly be wrong with a list of people with the freedom of various cities, I hear you ask? Well, a couple of things.

Most cities confer freedom as an honour; there are in excess of 4,000 cities with a population of 150,000 or above (and smaller ones still confer freedom, e.g. St. Davids has a population under 2,000.
Some cities allow anyone to apply, including London.
A search for freedom of the city of London yields in excess of half a million names up to 1925, and many more have been added since.
Honorary freedom is not the same as being a freeman of the city, though they amount to the same thing in practical terms - the list introduction covers only honorary freedom.

In the end a series of hierarchical categories (by country and city) would do the same job much better. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Being granted the title of freeman in medival times is clearly not enough, on its own, to show notability. Even lists of all the members of the city council over time for even most cities in the US would be unjustified, this list is a lower inclusion criteria. This is the type of honor that cities are as likely to bestow to increase their prestige as for any other reason, that Cher was given it by a city in Australia adds next to nothing to her notability. It is so trivial for some people, it is not worth mentioning in their biography. For some other cities, we seem to have an incomplete lists that lacks anyone who is notable. This is not something that at all shows any level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is difficult to see how this list could ever be complete and could grow to an unmanageable size very easily. Many awards of freedoms of cities are to people for local work which is not likely to be considered notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article and I agree with the other points above. I think it is far better to mention such awards within individual's articles where they are notable (or in some cases they are notable because an individual declined or had the award rescinded). Dunarc (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands I don't know where to start with this, the inclusion criteria is rather woolly, everyone and every town and even districts are included it seems, plus a good portion of those added do not have WP entries. The list is very long and not very readable, it is very WP:LISTCRUFTY in this state. If this is kept the list needs to be split (into each country probably like has happened already with the Canada entry) and each of the list have much tighter inclusion criteria. I picked on Stoke-on-Trent reference at random and find the only source given is just the procedure on getting the award, there needs to be a lot more secondary sources to show that getting the award is a notable event. Not against userfying if someone wants to work on it Mattg82 (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Choice Communications[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP due to sources failing WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 18:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 18:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 18:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 18:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nomination. —Formal Dude^(talk) 00:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:NCORP & WP:CORPDEPTH. Advertorial-only content; basically spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Dotzler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No clear demonstration of notability. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Seems a rather promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the creation and survival of an AfD for this article are prime examples of how Wikipedia inclusion policies were very messed up back in 2007, and of how much Amero-middle class centric naval gazing dominated everything going on in Wikipedia then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third Way, The Hindu Way[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no reliable sources for this philosophy. A Google search only turns up a couple of blogs and the rest have nothing to do with this article. The single reference is the book that proposed the philosophy that is the subject of the article. Major contributors likely have an undisclosed conflict of interest as they have written this article like an advertisement and most of their contributions are on this article and the article of the book's author who proposed this philosophy. Gazoth (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 28 December 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. J04n(talk page) 16:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post Emo[edit]

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

The term is not widely used, and it certainly has not risen to the level of becoming its own musical genre. The cited sources are unreliable or they don't prove the topic is notable. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are unreliable and anything described on this page just seems to being talking about emo pop or midwest emo.Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreliable sources and i've never even heard of the genre. Statik N (talk) 21:31, 29 December 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. J04n(talk page) 16:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kana Yume[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. 20th placement in a fan-based poll is not a claim of significance; nn as a member of a music band either since the group includes dozens and hundreds of rotating current and former members. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable source coverage. The fact that we have over 50 times as many articles on Japnese pornographic film actressres than Japanese female judges is a true travesty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Christopher Homes Projects. J04n(talk page) 16:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Homes[edit]

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

Unremarkable project that relies more on newsworthy events than focusing on the subject of the article itself. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to our 2010 article, Christopher Homes Projects, of which this article is an almost exact copy (whilst providing no WP:ATTribution, and having been created by a sockpuppeteer- although the subsequent editing makes it ineligible for WP:G5), yet provides an acceptable search term for a redirect. All things being equal, the project passes both WP:N and WP:GEOFEAT on account of the coverage in WP:RS... A.K.A., "newsworthy events" :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Serial Number 54129. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above 2 editors. Which could have been done without taking it to afd. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per others. --Doncram (talk) 22:04, 31 December 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. Looks like opinion is split more or less 50:50 on this one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie Curtis[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep think you have to make an exception for a memorable line in the original Star Wars. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Currently featured as a main news article on the BBC website in the UK. Spiderone 18:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His death is being reported as a major news item. That should be reason enough to regard him as notable. Martyn Smith (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not that bad to be deleted and is notable as his death is being reported by multiple news organizations. I've see worse articles than this and they're not being nominated for deletion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Laughable that some editor nominated this one for deletion - he must have nothing better to do with his time - the actor has dialog in one of the most famous films in history - thou we didn't know his name before today the fact of the matter is this --- most of us just assumed he had a wiki page before today!--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:C57:B925:112F:96D (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- his dialog plays off Sir Alec Guinness for that alone he warrants notablity--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:C57:B925:112F:96D (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is the textbook definition of a fancruft article, and the attempts to justify keeping it just dial the fancruft up a notch. He is no way, shape, means or form passes the notability guidelines for an actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep formal BBC obituary is typically a strong sign of nobility. GuzzyG (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. Strong evidence of notability, no reason for it to be deleted. Davey2116 (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appeared in four feature films and more than a dozen television appearances. The Vital One (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has made enough appearances, albeit minor ones; enough coverage from reliable sources Spiderone 10:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable actor - Fails NACTOR as well as GNG, Just because they starred in Star Wars it doesn't mean they're automatically notable and automatically granted for an article, I see all of the !Keeps above are from Star Wars fans and as such all of these should be ignored, Either !vote Keep and provide reliable and indepth sources or don't !vote at all, Pretty simple really. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never watched a Star Wars movie, but i do recognize BBC do not give out obits to non-notable people generally, i mean that's the gold standard for notability (along with the new york times). GuzzyG (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point they don't but for me atleast that source isn't enough to justify the article, No doubt about it it's great but for me as I said it's enough to prove notability, Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 15:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot assume the motivations of other editors and Wikipedia cannot disregard their input based on your assumptions. The Vital One (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. I have failed to find any coverage other than obituaries, and those obituaries generally focus on him as the answer to a trivia question. Was he a stage actor? Were any of his television roles major? We don't know, because the obituaries don't discuss this. And simply being in Star Wars: A New Hope isn't inherently notable on its own. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 01:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boomj.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB; defunct social networking site with only passing/short mentions in reliable sources. Υπογράφω (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to indicate this was ever a sufficiently notable website. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 28 December 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 Deleted Speedy deletion under G10 - attack page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Pappas[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as unsuccessful candidate. Also, poorly written and poorly sourced. Rusf10 (talk) 17:07, 27 December 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.

After closing note: I redirected this page to Pappas Telecasting in reference to the founder of that separate company. Nate • (chatter) 21:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Sullivan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate who lost in primary. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Being Chairman of the New Jersey Turnpike also is not a claim to notability (I'm not even sure what was accomplished while he was there). Rusf10 (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE B states, "Carry out these checks", and B4 states, "Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with." Doing so leads to:

John McCarron, Chicago Tribune (January 9, 1986). "Life in fast lanes expanding". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2017-12-28. the mega-project drew little public attention until early November...when Sullivan..let slip the amount of bonds... A cool $2 billion, making it the largest issue in the history of state and local public works. Democrats...[claimed this was] empire-building on a grand scale.

Then there is

Gillespie, Angus Kress; Rockland, Michael Aaron (1989). Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-1466-5.

The Amazon page shows that this book has the two reviews needed to make the book itself notable, also saying that it is written by two Rutger's professors. I can't see the text, but a 2006 reviewer writes, "Bo Sullivan and the Turnpike are bundles of unrestricted energy. The New Jersey Turnpike shapes the state...It is the busiest toll road in the nation."

So given WP:BEFORE, why are you asking "I'm not even sure what was accomplished while he was there"? Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed widening project discussed in the above article never came to be. Although, I wouldn't use it as a reliable source, it is explained here [28]- "One widening project proposed in the late 1980's never came to pass. Specifically, a 1987 plan advanced by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority called for an expansion of the western spur from its current six-lane (3-3) configuration to a twelve-lane, 3-3-3-3 configuration. The plan also called for construction of a new interchange, "EXIT 15 W-A," for an extension of NJ 17 approximately one mile south of EXIT 16 (NJ 3)." If it had been completed then it would actually be an accomplishment. As far as books are concerned, if you can read the book and properly cite it fine, but we're not going off a book review.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We? Who is "we"? Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - his nytimes obituary also mentions that he was also finance chairman of the New Jersey Republican Party and co-chairman of Bush Sr. presidential campaign in New Jersey. Looking at news articles from the 1980s[29], I see a lot of coverage of him from that period. To me, an article about the subject could clearly pass WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. The current version is little better than the 2013 article originally nominated for discussion, but the reasons to retain the article are still pretty clear to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article a bit, giving more detail about his early life and mentioning his work with the 1988 Bush transition team. Some of the references I added are quite in depth about Sullivan, for instance: [30], [31], [32], and [33]. Three of those are in New Jersey papers, but the second one is from the Philadelphia Inquirer, suggesting in depth interest in Sullivan beyond New Jersey. Regarding whether or not his accomplishments were important, in my opinion the current article supports the idea that he was a significant player in the New Jersey and national Republican Party throughout the 1980s. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Philadelphia Inquirer regularly covers New Jersey politics due to its proximity to south jersey and Trenton.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but in some form his performance at the Republican National Convention was covered in dozens of papers in nine states (including NJ and PA): [34]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep excellent referencing with the NYT obit. --RAN (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So excellent, that's why they referenced it three times.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"They"? Unscintillating (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsuccessful candidate for the governorship, so that is not a sign of notability. Since New Jersey is in the circulation area of the NYT, an NYT obit for a New Jersey figure is not a sign of notability. Nor is being campaign co-chair for a state sub-section of a national primary election campaign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, passing trivia; does not meet GNG guidelines for stand alone article and Wikipedia is not a newspaper; see WP:Not News. Kierzek (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such New York Times rule in the GNG. --RAN (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER states, "news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics". Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added the following to the Further reading section of the article:

Alex Ray (2008). Hired Gun: A Political Odyssey. University Press of America. pp. 119–. ISBN 978-0-7618-4059-6. Retrieved 2017-12-28. Joseph "Bo" Sullivan was president of a company that manufactured typewriter ribbons. National Committeewoman Noelle Gross recommended...me to Sullivan. Although never involved in politics previously...

Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The substantial coverage in reliable independent sources over many years establishes notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is one of the sources from the previous AfD, the one showing an Amazon page:

Angus K. Gillespie; Michael Rockland (1989-01-01). Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-1466-6. Retrieved 2017-12-29. If you look at "Bo" Sullivan's office, you see evidence of the kind of power the chairman of the New Jersey Turnpike exercises.

Unscintillating (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep as per the previous unanimous AfD; and the sources found there, reposted here, and listed in the article, which satisfy GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article makes a case for his notability and backs it up with reliable and verifiable sources about him. Kudos to all those editors who have not only voted keep but have worked to expand and improve the article with the sources that further evidence notability. I am intrigued that The New York Times, a national and international newspaper that covers the world and the 23 million residents of the New York metropolitan area, has been downgraded by JPL to the status of a local paper, and the same by Rusf10 for The Philadelphia Inquirer, but any excuse for deletion to ignore reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Most of the coverage of Sullivan seems to be related to his failed campaign. The precedent for this is "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted." see WP:POLOUTCOMES--Rusf10 (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Rusf10, you're just repeating yourself. His primary notability as Turnpike Authority chairman, though all from you is a baseless assertion that the position is not notable. Yet at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Howe Davis, which you nominated yourself, that position seems to be contradicted by consensus. Any reconsideration of your unsupported stand? Alansohn (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:POLOUTCOMES says something else. The first bullet at WP:POLOUTCOMES says that cabinet-level appointed political figures of states are generally regarded as notable. Unscintillating (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman of the New Jersey Turnpike is NOT a cabinent-level position.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 2017, no they are not. In the 80's it might have been. That was before the Turnpike Commission and the Parkway Commission merged and they were independent bodies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sustained coverage in independent, reliable sources is certainly in compliance with the WP:GNG. The claims that coverage in national-level sections of the New York Times is not significant due to WP:LOCAL is not consonant with that essay (which is about places of local interest anyway). The sources in Philadelphia Inquirer and other generally WP:RS mean that claim is not controlling in any event. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How Can I Tell If I'm Really In Love?[edit]

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

Educational classroom video with unclear notability. I understand that famous actors are in it, but notability is not inherited. References all appear to be tongue-in-cheek meme-esque articles re "look how bad this was." The content of the article does not go toward developing notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any sources to establish the subject's notability. All those I could see are the links to YouTube and IMDb. Fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surprisingly really, I'd have thought this video would have been picked up 20 years later and chuckled over as a "sign of the times" (eg: the cast of Grange Hill singing "Just Say No"), but there's nothing in obviously reliable sources at all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Renna[edit]

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN. Also, poorly sourced since most of the sources seem to contain only passing mentions of the subject. Rusf10 (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the referencing looks fine to me, plenty more available. --RAN (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete routine coverage is all we have. Being one of multiple members of a state comission as he was is not a sign of notability, nor is being head of a political party at the US county level. Maybe in a country which is one party and the party runs the government, but not in the US system, where party officials mainly reflect the created goals of the elected officials and the electorate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Routine reads: "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc." I know you are going to say that the "etc." covers all the references used in the article but an equally absurd argument would be that etc means any reference concerning presidents of the USA or popes, and we have to delete articles about presidents and popes. --RAN (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RAN, Isn't that a bit of an extreme interpretation of what John Pack Lambert was trying to mean. You have to admit that Paid Notice: Deaths RENNA, GRACE B. could easily fall under WP:ROUTINE, right? Also, I appreciate your contributions to the article as it gets discussed because it sheds a more favorable light on it. Thank you for your edits. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 19:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is called the strawman fallacy, that item was added long after the AFD started. Even if there from the beginning, no claim was made that this reference was used to promote notability, it is there to verify a fact. --RAN (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first bullet at WP:POLOUTCOMES says that cabinet-level appointed political figures of states are generally regarded as notable. Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The official results of a primary election I guess are more a primary source than routine, but either way they are not an example of the type of substantial coverage needed to establish notability. Such is entirely lacking here. The reports are at best on elections, not individuals. We have none of the needed substantial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable and verifiable sourcing about him surpasses the notability standard, in addition to his state cabinet role meeting the WP:POLOUTCOMES standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has had major improvements. Unscintillating (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sourcing satisfies GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No way would an already dead provincial-level politician, who has never gone to the national level of politics, ever reach any level of GNG. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 02:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Province of New Jersey hasn't been around since the time of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I meant by "provincial level". No need to pick over words. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 19:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No articles on governors or state senators? They have not "gone to the national level of politics". --RAN (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least not for leaders of tinpot kingdoms. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malkawi[edit]

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

I don't see how this clan satisfies WP:GNG. Although I'm at a disadvantage because I don't speak Arabic, the sources listed are dubious at best. #1 gives an error. I have no idea what #2 means. Perhaps #3 is a book?? #5 is a book, but assuming it supports the material in the article, it still doesn't establish that the clan is notable. I have no idea what #6 means (it's not a link). #7 won't even machine translate for me. #11 is just a bunch of pictures, which I assume includes the Jordanian general. #8-10 are just proving that there are notable people whose last name is Malkawi. Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with deletion because this tribe is not notable even in arwiki and it was recreated and deleted many times. the problem is that the user is nearly has one purpose and he tried to create it in many many languages in order to create a fake notability. see his global contributions and any steward can see his deleted contributions to asses the situation. regards--مصعب (talk) 20:39, 27 December 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. J04n(talk page) 15:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Kelly Jr.[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Neithier being mayor of East Orange, NJ nor president of the Essex County board of taxation is a notable position. Contains only two sources, one of which is a marriage announcement. WP:PROD was "denied" by USER:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) without explanation. Rusf10 (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Change to Keep - fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, and I can't find any other quality references through a Google search. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With the addition of sources, this article meets WP:GNG at the least. I am concerned with some of the sources providing only routine coverage (this councillor was elected, etc) but there are some more substantive pieces to balance it out. When in doubt, I would prefer to lean towards retaining the article so it can be further built up. I also didn't know about newspapers.com - that's an excellent resource! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: Thanks! I have access to newspapers.com through WP:TWL. Together with project MUSE, TWL has made a lot of writing I do here easier and more fun and I encourage you (anyone) to check it out. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete marriage announcements are plain out as a sign of notability, especially ones published in the paper that covers where the people live. If the subject is notable, one can find more than a marriage announcement. The other is an example of routine coverage of someone taking office, something that any half good paper will do for people in their coverage area. Someone like Kelly might not bear mention in the current New York Times, but that is because in the current era it can leverage national coverage better to get subscriptions, in the 1960s papers had to cover local or die.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've expanded the article a bit and think he passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. As one might expect of a mayor of a town of 60,000+, there is a lot more coverage of this subject in newspapers as can be seen on newspapers.com (for instance, see: [35]). I've added eight newspaper article references. One is an advertisement, another is a wedding announcement for his first marriage. Those two are quite detailed about Kelly. Most of the rest are rather routine articles about the life and doings of a civil servant - which is nothing to sneeze at. The article I added which gives the most detail is here. There are 300+ articles about him on newspapers.com if anyone wants to look for more (if you don't have access, I highly recommend you apply for access from The Wikipedia Library if you qualify). Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing meets the GNG. The marriage announcement is there to support a fact, and never was used to argue notability, that false argument is called the strawman fallacy. --RAN (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources to satisfy GNG, and as per the lede of WP:N, it therefore doesn't matter whether or not the topic satisfies WP:Notability (people). Unscintillating (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantiap coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage about him in reliable and verifiable sources meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 15:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Gendron[edit]

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

Full prof at Laval, but no evidence that the individual meets WP:PROF. A handful of low-level and institutional awards. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to Google Scholar, 11 of his publications have over 100 citations each. That should be plenty for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:PROF; appears to be a recognised expert in the field. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:48, 28 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Farzad Goodarzi[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack pf substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:30, 29 December 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. J04n(talk page) 15:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Howe Davis[edit]

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

was WP:PROD and "denied" by USER:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) without explanation. fails WP:POLITICIAN. Neither being the mayor of Orange, NJ nor the Director of the NJ Alcoholic Beverage Control division is a notable position. Rusf10 (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doing a little bit of research using a little-known tool called "Google" turned up several sources about Davis and his roles administering alcoholic beverages and amusement games in New Jersey. Davis is covered extensively in reliable and verifiable sources that are indisputably about him and that attest to the significance of his roles in government. Fortunately, the nominator's mere claims of WP:NOTNOTABLE can be safely ignored, as the Wikipedia standard is about coverage in sources, not assertions of who and what is not notable. If WP:BEFORE was observed, it's not apparent here based on the breadth and scope of what could be -- and was -- added with trivial effort. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I had offered Rusf10 a model for following WP:BEFORE, but it seems that there is no interest in complying with policy. Whether it's the multiple sources that wold have been found if the nominator had bothered to click under "Find sources" on the word "books" above to get these results or on "NYT" to get these results or a source like "William H. Davis, Quiet but Tough", a detailed in-depth piece about him and his various governmental roles that would have turned up in an ordinary Google search, it seems that WP:BEFORE has been systematically ignored, yet again, by a nominator who doesn't seem to understand the critical nature of these requirements in maintaining the integrity of the deletion process. Alansohn (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources and details added by Alansohn show the subject clearly satisfies WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE- Sourcing is about quality not quantity. The vast majority of sources in the NYT about this man are marriage announcements, his mother's obituary, etc. The only reason they were covered is because of the notability of his family members, but notability is not inherited. His biggest accomplishment at Alcoholic Beverage Control seem to be his opposition to vending machines that dispensed alcoholic beverage (something that would have almost certainly been outlawed anyway).--Rusf10 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly interested in his accomplishments or lack thereof. He seems to me to be a suitable subject for inclusion in the encyclopedia because an article can be written about him without violating the three core content policies. With regards to the quality of sourcing, Wikipedia:NEWSORG suggests that established newspapers are usually considered reliable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wasn't directed specifically at you. I see what you're saying. I believe differently though. When I read WP:POLITICIAN #2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. The footnote next to that says "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." I take "in depth" to mean more than just an announcement that he/she was elected or appointed to a position or the puff piece we have about the political differences in Davis's family and his golf game. Being that his positions do not automatically qualify him as notable, my question would be did he accomplish anything major or with a lasting impact? Outlawing vending machines for booze (something that almost anyone would have supported) is really not notable to me.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I guess we disagree on a couple points, but that is fine. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello from my holiday vacation. Another obvious keep based on the source material. --RAN (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator: Perhaps now you might show some small measure of good faith and withdraw the nomination, both on the basis of the sources added and those further available, as well as the clear consensus. It would make it look a bit less like a coordinated effort to merely destroy content you don't like. Alansohn (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first bullet at WP:POLOUTCOMES says that cabinet-level appointed political figures of states are generally regarded as notable. Unscintillating (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant because the Director of the NJ Alcoholic Beverage Control is NOT a cabinet level position.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So? POLOUTCOMES is not a guideline and is very general. Only someone in New Jersey would know or care about the difference between Director of the NJ Alcoholic Beverage Control and whatever you consider to be a Cabinet level position. Also, he had another cabinet-level type post, one more prominent than the usual cabinet-level post. From our article, "Confirmed by the New Jersey Senate in February 1960 to become the first head of the state's Amusement Games Commission, Howe was given what Billboard magazine described as a "powerful" role to "lay down any rulings he sees fit" in a market that was at the time one of the nation's largest for coin-operated amusement games as the country's major summertime seashore resort area.[9]." Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who brought this into the discussion. You really think Amusement Games Commission is part of the cabinet too? Seriously do you really think that the guy regulating games on the boardwalk is at the same level as the secretary of state, the treasurer, transportation sectary, labor secretary, etc? It's not "whatever you consider", the New Jersey governor actually has a cabinet just like the president of the United States has. Both positions Davis held are part of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety which is led by the Attorney General (that's a cabinet level position)--Rusf10 (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your claims are uncited, and I've already explained at length that your point if you could cite it is irrelevant. Had you done your WP:BEFORE preparation, you've have presented this information in the nomination, and possibly saved some editors some work. Unscintillating (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My claims are uncited? I didn't realize I had to cite things in a discussion. How about you do a "BEFORE you open your big mouth search"? We do have an article on Government of New Jersey, all the cabinet level positions are listed there. Commissioner of Amusement Games is not one of them. I love how you bring POLOUTCOMES into the discussion and then when I directly address it you tell me its irrelevant. All you do is bring irrelevant arguments into discussions to throw them off course. You are the king of irrelevance.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name calling is not directly addressing. Unscintillating (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did it occur to you that with the legalization of gambling in the 1970s that they might have disbanded the Amusement Games commission? Unscintillating (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. It still exists, it is now the Legalized Games of Chance Control Commission- [36] (see I cited it). Casinos are regulated by a different agency.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then it was off base to complain about "irrelevant arguments" in the same paragraph that you report a failed search for an organization that no longer exists by that name. The point remains that POLOUTCOMES is not a controlling authority and is broadly construed. Unscintillating (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a cite that the governor appointed the Amusement Games commissioner:

Nielsen Business Media, Inc. (1959-12-21). Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. pp. 51–. ISSN 0006-2510. Retrieved 2017-12-30. Davis was nominated by Governor Robert B. Meyner to handle the games job in addition to his regular chores with the liquor control unit. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)

And here is a cite that the Senate confirmed the commissioner:

Nielsen Business Media, Inc. (1960-02-22). Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. pp. 70–. ISSN 0006-2510. Retrieved 2017-12-30. William Howe Davis is New Jersey's first amusement games commissioner. He was confirmed by the State Senate here Monday {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)

Unscintillating (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to RAN for finding and stopping this prod. Also kudos to @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Alansohn, Smmurphy, Tinton5, and The Mighty Glen: for article improvements. Unscintillating (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article of topic in public office for 20 years. GNG. First commissioner of New Jersey Amusement Game Commission in 1960. I added a source to the article. Unscintillating (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only was he the Mayor of Orange (which should be enough for keep/inclusion alone), but he held state-level appointed office as Director of the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control. We stand to lose so much state and local Wikipedia content due to these mass deletions, here with the Oranges and Essex County. Scanlan (talk) 23:19, 31 December 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. Should'a been G12'd based on the copyvio claim. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert-W step-potential[edit]

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

Not notable. This appears to be based around a single paper from 2015 with essentially no citations or other references to this name. (The author of which is from Armenia, as were the flurry of IP edits in this article's past) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

Inverse square root potential (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

for the same reasons (same author, same lack of notability, etc). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as copyvios of [37] and [38] respectively. Sentences are basically carried over: "an implicitly elementary function that resolves the equation $We^{W}=z$ ", "an asymmetric step of height $V_{0}$ whose steepness and asymmetry are controlled by parameter $\sigma$ ", "a four-parametric specification of a more general five-parametric potential which is also solvable in terms of the confluent hypergeometric functions", etc. XOR'easter (talk) 23:55, 28 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Asaduzzaman Chowdhury[edit]

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

No indication that the subject is notable under WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. GScholar citation metrics are respectable but don't rise to the level of WP:PROF#C1 in a high-citation field like engineering; no inherently notable positions mentioned in the article; no notable awards; books have not been widely reviewed. The article itself is more like a CV than an encyclopaedia article, and the username of the creator strongly suggests there's a COI involved. – Joe (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he certainly has been busy but I'm not seeing anything but promotion of his work, none of which meets the criteria for WP:NACADEMIC. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article looking like a CV. Disclose COI and rewrite to pass WP:BIO. Genome$100 (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete total failure of the notability guidelines for academics. The format of the article at present suggests we should delete it and allow a start over if there is a chance he is notable, but he just does not meet our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CAsaduzzaman and sockpuppets

Keep Please keep it and should be given the opportunity to enrich the page according to the Wikipedia policy. Some worthy contributions of Prof. Dr. Chowdhury are not included in this page. He is a writer (capable to write Bengali and English stories, poems and songs, these were published already in different media), He is a prominent Columnist (more than 100 of articles were published in National Bengali and English newspapers), he is a researcher in the field of materials (lot of worthy contributions are there), As a specialized person, he was participated in different television talk shows and as an educationist, he is involved indifferent educational, social and cultural activities. There are strong points to keep her page for inspiring the people of the world. He has a quality of multidimensional creativity. — CAsaduzzaman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Strongly recommended to keep the page of Prof. Dr. Mohammad Asaduzzaman Chowdhury. In fact, there are lot of contributions of Dr. Chowdhury but the page is not well arranged. He has a magical power to motivate others. Although he has proven himself successful in different areas and versatile personality. If the page is deleted, the great person is hidden forever. In this context exposed of the page to public is required in modified way. Rakib Ul Hasan. — Rakib Ul Hassan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It will be very frustrated one if the decision is taken as deletion. The multi talent of Prof. Dr. Chowdhury should be exposed to the public for encouraging the new generations. The page can be arranged with relevant worthy contributions of Chowdhury and it can be suggested. Suman Das. — Suman Das Canada (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Checkuser note: CAsaduzzaman, Rakib Ul Hassan, and Suman Das Canada are Confirmed socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CAsaduzzaman.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: CAsaduzzaman was the creator of the article. – Joe (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Top citation counts in Google scholar appear to be 106 ("The effect of amplitude of vibration on the coefficient of friction for different materials"), 93 ("The effect of sliding speed and normal load on friction and wear property of aluminum"), 69 ("The effect of frequency of vibration and humidity on the coefficient of friction"), etc. That's respectable, as the nomination states, but not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and there seems nothing else. And the article itself is a total mess of unsourced personal detail and CV-like unencyclopedic listings of all publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear COI and promotion. Messy article looks like a résumé. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. - Mar11 (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 14:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beast Farmer[edit]

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

Yet another article that has survived here for too long despite there not being available sources. Coin945 (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly promotional. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tamir Bar-On[edit]

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

No evidence that this individual meets WP:PROF. A handful of books and Google hits. His h-index is 10, which in many disciplines is about post-doc level. The edit history shows that Tamir Bar-On edited the page extensively himself (under multiple usernames), and until I got to it, much of the article was simply a list of Amazon links to sell his books. Vanity page for publicity and book-selling purposes. I think this article has been through PROD, but never AfD. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CV/vanity. Agricola44 (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article lists one published review of one of his four books, but I can't find any others. That's not enough for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, and no other notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "review" of his 2007 book says it will be a book of major impact. If that were so we could see lots more sources about it. We live in an era when academic publications have been described by the saying "never have so many, published so much, for so few".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rather keep: one of the main international specialists of the French New Right. NAH 14:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by Bishonen as A7. (non-admin closure) K.e.coffman (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vhayu[edit]

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

Delete Declined prod. 11 years ago; in the interim no significant coverage in sources added that would indicate this company ever met the notability requirements of WP:CORP, UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7; no assertion of notability. I requested such, let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete and it would have worked, too, were it not for that pesky ProD. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. Bishonen | talk 21:25, 31 December 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. No prejudice against re-creation with better sources. A Train^talk 14:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard N. Armstrong[edit]

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

Non-notable academic who does not meet WP:PROF. Note: there was also another academic named Richard N. Armstrong, who is possibly notable. But that Richard N. Armstrong was a biochemist; this Richard N. Armstrong is a social scientist. No evidence of notability that I could find for this one. The article contains no citations and was clearly edited by someone with a COI based on some of the personal info contained. Bueller 007 (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a quick search didn't turn up anything for this particular individual. I would happily change my position if it were presented. As the article is written and from what I can find, the subject fails WP:GNG and any other notability measure I can think of.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS is a dealbreaker. Agricola44 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did turn up this [39] review of his study of the rhetoric of David O. McKay. It is not enough to show notability, but might be a first step. The book has also been referenced in some later biographies of David O. McKay, such as is Gregory A. Prince and William Robert Wright in David O. McKay and the rise of Modern Mormonism. However Prince and Wright only mention this book in footnotes, not the text. On the other hand, Prince and Wright didn't write a true biography, more an account of the McKay administration that focused mostly on controversial topics. No one has yet written a full-length, full life, scholarly biograhy of David O. McKay. This despite the fact he is one of the 3 most important figures in LDS history in the 20th-century, vying for this position with Spencer W. Kimball and Gordon B. Hinckley, although Ezra Taft Benson was during the first half of the McKay era the most famous Mormon bar none, and his impact on the Church was also very high. Armstrong's work is cited in most later works on McKay, including Mary Jane Woodger's edited volumne of the early correspondence of McKay and his wife (some of which dates to before their marriage), but I have not yet found enough information to show that Armstrong is notable. If he ever comes out with his more broad study of the rhetoric of Latter-day Saint prophets, and if that receives wide scholarly attention, than it might be possible to argue that Armstrong is notable, but I have not yet unearthed sources that really suggest this. The reivew I found is not enough, especially since it is about the book and not Armstrong, nor are the few references to the book. Ill keep looking, but am not very hopeful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've weighed this issue a lot, tried my best to find sources, and see that we have nothing coming close to the bar established for notability of academics. His most significant book came out in 1993, and so there might be hard to find with quick internet searches reviews, but unless someone shows there were lots of good, indepth reviews in several different academic journals, I just do not see Armstrong being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if offline sources are found later, we can easily create the article again.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 14:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terramundi Money Pots[edit]

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

Promotional article about an unremarkable product. Note that none of the references seem to be about the company or product. TheLongTone (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Piggy bank. —Paleo Neonate – 12:11, 29 December 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.

Please keep a page on terramundi pots! — Preceding unsigned comment added by James959 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Dog (short film)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON Note that altho the director is a blue link this leads to a squash player, and also that the article creator seems to be this same person. TheLongTone (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability per WP:NFILM, and according to the article it hasn't even begun shooting yet. No significant coverage online from WP:RS. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. I'm also concerned that this may even be a hoax. The article creator has had a previous similar article deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Teeth (TV series)). He seems intent on getting himself into Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage of film whatsoever. Kb.au (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Notable or otherwise, film hasn't starting shooting yet Firebag237 (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indicates this will be a notable film. I am beginning to think we may also want to look at tightening our guidelines for film notability. I have read too many film articles that all they have is a boiler plate useless synopsis of the plot and a list of the cast, all sourced to only IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Dhoorh[edit]

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

I'm not sure that his alleged political offices meet WP:NPOL and there appears to be scant information about him other than in a few caste-related pressure group sources, which are generally not considered to be meaningful. The "Man of the Year" award from Michigan seems to be dodgy - Trump has claimed the same award and was lambasted for making it up (no idea if he actually did). I can't find mention of the other awards either, although perhaps I am hampered by lack of access to paywalled etc US news sources. Sitush (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the chair of a county political party would not be notable, vice chair even less so, especially in a fairly marginal county like Kent County, Michigan. It is not one of even the three largest counties in the state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 12:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PlayMaster[edit]

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

Lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No usable 3rd party coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 28 December 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. The keep argument that the subject was famous before his death is not borne out by the current article sources, which are exclusively coverage generated by his demise. No prejudice against re-creation with sources (Chinese sources would be fine, if reliable) that demonstrate his previous notoriety, which would effectively rebut the WP:ONEEVENT deletion arguments. A Train^talk 12:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Yongning[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to use this page, so I hope this entry is okay. I'm not related to Wu Yongning, I only created this article because it was an opportunity to create a new Wikipedia article, and the subject seemed worthy. His death attracted the interest of The Washington Post, Time Magazine, USA Today, and many others. I think that with the additions of future editors, it will be a perfectly good Wikipedia article.Cellodont (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)cellodont[reply]

Update.... I'm looking for any original content posted by this guy himself. Everything I've found on youtube is tribute-content generated after his death, but nothing from before, including his many exploits. I'm feeling unsure as to the comparison I've drawn between him and Alain Robert and Alex Honnold... He seems notable to me for being unafraid of heights, but I'm not seeing anything that confirms that he was actually a great climber. According to the legend, there should be tons of videos of him doing spiderman-like climbs up sheer building faces, but I have found none... would hate to author a fake legend on a guy who rode the elevator to the top and snapped a few neat-o selfies, then fell off one day. Cellodont (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)cellodont[reply]

His videos are all on Weibo, Celledont. What we need to find here is coverage in newspapers before his death so he can be worthy of inclusion. J947 Public (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the polite conversation, J947... I looked on Weibo and didn't find his channel due to don't speak/read chinese, but I did see a cut-together of his career highlights, and from what I saw, he is not a free solo climber, he's an elevator-rider and ladder climber. SO, I will change the article... Uggh... my first wikipedia article, and I'm not even interested in the guy. Well, I think he deserves a wikipedia page as much as fred figglehorn, but I'm not going to fight hard for it.Cellodont (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)cellodont[reply]

This is his Weibo account if you are interested: https://weibo.com/727398786 --106.37.222.107 (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are looking for Chinese sources:

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

There's definitely enough for GNG but most deal with his death. Timmyshin (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Timmyshin for the help; I looked at one of the links you provided, but I'm at work and the browser's translate function seems to be disabled, so I can't read anything at the link, will have to wait. I agree with you and J947Public that news coverage PRIOR to his death would more certainly credential him as worthy of a (English?) Wikipedia article, and I have a feeling that there probably is such coverage, although I'm not sure that Chinese media are/were free to write anything other than condemnations of his exploits. That said, I disagree that news coverage prior to his death is absolutely necessary. The fact that his death was covered so widely is its own validation. Gotta go, thanks for your contributions. Cellodont (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Cellodont[reply]

There's some Chinese coverage from before his death e.g. [40] (from Wuhan) [41] (from Changsha), but his real name was not identified in these reports. Essentially, reporters saw his videos online and contacted local police, legal professionals and building managements on their opinions because he himself never responded to their inquiries. Timmyshin (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - his death was reported worldwide (Google news returns a whopping 700,000 results for his name, in English alone). It was one of the most viewed articles on both BBC and South China Morning Post, not to mention domestic Chinese media. If it proves to be WP:ONEEVENT, then the article should be renamed to Death of Wu Yongning, not deleted. -Zanhe (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why you want to delete this article , everyone talking about all around world^[3]

References

^ http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125676
^ https://news.virginia.edu/content/rice-theory-explains-north-south-china-cultural-differences-study-shows
^ CNN, Ben Westcott and Serenitie Wang. "Who is to blame for Chinese rooftopper's dramatic death?". CNN. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)

Comment He passes GNG. Wikipedia goes like "Passes GNG, however WP:OTHER NOTABILITY GUIDELINE says no article". In this case, it is WP:ONEVENT that says that, clearly. So, if moved to Death of Wu Yongning, because that is what the event was, then we look at WP:EVENTCRITERIA. It requires "enduring historical significance" or "significant lasting effect" or "notable if widespread impact"? Nope. It also says "Routine...news events...including...deaths..."shock" news...stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories,"...whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time...are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance..." and that says to me Death of Wu Yongning is not notable. Counter that argument and I'll "keep", otherwise I'll "delete". Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Urban_exploration#Rooftopping. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677, keep on what grounds? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Anna Frodesiak:, I am indifferent between keep and redirect, so long as the article history remains. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 11:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this youtuber was famous for his stunts long before his death he has received international coverage from reliable sources for an extended period of time. This is not run of the mill. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Typical one-event article, as one can see from the fact that all references in the article are from the same time. The assertion above that he "has received international coverage from reliable sources for an extended period of time" is not borne out by any references in the article. Sandstein 10:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Brant[edit]

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

Near-sure UPE Spam.No notability. Winged Blades^Godric 11:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source used to reference her 1987 birth is from 1972 (fallacious ref of future event) and all the other sources are web cruft...so, no real RS. Created by SPA whose only edits service this bio. Generic "writer/activist" label alone is not a legit notability claim. May be a vanity page. Agricola44 (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When a sourced published in 1972 is the closest to a reliable source in an article on someone not even born until 1987 there is a very big mess going on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This source is not web cruft, it's KQRE TV news from Albuquerque. The Miss Indian World pageant has its own article. Are winners of that contest noteable? I couldn't find a beauty pageants SNG but I didn't look very hard and I'm not a subject matter expert, aside from my own incredible beauty, of course. A Train^talk 12:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UK Young Publishing Entrepreneur Awards[edit]

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

Non-notable award. Googling the full title quoted does not even get two full pages of hits. Very likely COI from the creator, and no substantive edits by anybody else since created in 2010. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The single ref doesn't support notability. Such a niche award it is unlikely to ever be notable. Szzuk (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability is shown in the article and searches do not indicate that there is anything to suggest that these are notable awards. Dunarc (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNo reliable sources, to debate. Genome$100 (talk) 09:49, 29 December 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. Sandstein 11:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Real Housewives: The Game[edit]

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

Classic non-notable TV show tie-in. Coin945 (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No-effort Flash tie-in game for a series that's well out-of-date and only applied to one season of a series with more than 100 individual seasons among all its iterations (and the writing of this article seems to mock it and the idea of women playing games). Oh, and the URL 404's so it's not even accessible now at all. Nate • (chatter) 17:21, 27 December 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. Sandstein 11:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Farmerama[edit]

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

Cant find any reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like a well thought out game and appealing to farm children and farmers, but I don't see it being of interest to journalists. The odds of Wikipedians finding sources looks grim. Journalism appears to being paying more attention to rural people post Trump election though.Knox490 (talk) 04:03, 31 December 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. Sandstein 10:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Porscia S. Yeganeh[edit]

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

This article is very promotional and many of the references are to self-published sources. I know nothing about fashion brands, but I see no national or international recognition here and doubt whether this individual meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I hope he has the sufficient coverage to keep. Genome$100 (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find subatantial coverage in reliavle independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of substantial coverage showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 29 December 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. Sandstein 10:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Kabra[edit]

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

I found one very marginal source, but not much else. The guy exists but it seems WP:TOOSOON for him. Maybe there are additional sources in Hindi, but I couldn't find them. Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 06:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and is WP:TOOSOON. FITINDIA 10:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a minor actor lacking significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 29 December 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. A redirect can be created editorially. Sandstein 10:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moneta Nova[edit]

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

A number of editors have worked on this page since 2001 but it is still an unreferenced stub. All the attempts to reference it or develop it have come to nothing, so the topic can’t be notable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It looks like a useless stub to me. Is there a potential redirect target? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The persistance of "moneta" for money into medieval coinage could possibly be mentioned at Moneta. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moneta#Coinage which is a brief section I added based on a reference I first added at this article. As the phrase "moneta nova" does appear on many coins, I think it is a reasonable search term in its own right and the article history does contain at least one potentially interesting reference in Danish that someone who wanted to add to this might look up. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:11, 31 December 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. Although some of the later "keep" opinions are ... questionably argued, there is nobody but the nominator supporting deletion. Sandstein 10:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Name (novel)[edit]

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

This should be merged back to the main article. It is a novelization written by Shinkai who created the film, and the plot is essentially the same as the film plot, and released one month before the world premiere. There is no detail analyzing the differences between the novel and the film that would imply any kind of film adaptation or showing that the novel was the original source. No equivalent JA wikipedia article presented. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The novel was the best selling light novel in Japan in both 2016 [42] and 2017 [43]. I also see reviews of the novel from at least two reliable anime-specific sources (I wouldn't know where to look for book reviews from more general sources) [44][45]. I'd say the notability of the novel on its own is sufficient for a standalone article. The statement in the lead section that the novel inspired the film seems false (I've read elsewhere that Makoto Shinkai decided to write a novelization after he was already working on the film), but that is irreverent for whether or not the novel should have its own article. Calathan (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the lead paragraph portion, removing the claim that the novel inspired the anime. Also added {{copied}} to the talk page to explain why the summaries are practically identical between the two articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it's not exactly clear if the novel or the film is intended to be considered the original work, the mere fact that the novel was the best selling novel in Japan for two consecutive year by itself makes the novel independently notable from the film. In addition, coverage in both Japanese and English for the novel independent of the film does exist. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. The author creates both pieces of work and releases them within a month of each other. The plot is essentially the same as the film, but I suppose the only difference is that the book is not a script of the film. In other cases for anime and manga they would be grouped into a single article. It is like releasing a music video to go with the single. Is the topic so much different that it requires two articles? Both are successful in their own right, but it's not like one distinguishes from the other like Thriller (music video) so much that it should get its own article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being categorized in best selling category in country like Japan is clear indication of notability as press must have written about it before we know it is classified as such. Some sources also will definitely be in Japanese, and then finally "merger discussion" is done at talkpage not at AfD. If you know your intenetion is for merge you shouldn't even create this AfD –Ammarpad (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree that merge discussion should happen on the page, not here. Artw (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why Was Deleted Article ?--Tvcccp (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kampung Tersusun Kampung Pulai[edit]

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

No source and notability. angys (Talk Talk) 08:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A real populated place. I didn't understand the double name and found it known just by the first name so I renamed. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:19, 29 December 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. The nomination was flawed and as such the 'per nom' !vote does also. In fact, the nomination almost falls under WP:SKCRIT #4, as the subject clearly passes WP:GEOLAND (Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low) with no other policy-basis for deltion. "No source" was claimed- erroneously, as I have added a couple,(no WP:BEFORE had obviously been done); also "no notability" was claimed, but this as we have seen is refuted by the place's status as being legally recognised, as pointed put by User:Doncram. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kampung Pintu Padang[edit]

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

No source and notability. angys (Talk Talk) 08:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.-- HindWiki^Connect 09:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is a populated place, and its existence is not disputed. Don't we keep all such cases? --Doncram (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:23, 27 December 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. Since I am the only !voter in nine days, my decision to close it soon after clearly requires explanation. I intended to leave it open; but the nominator's other six AfDs on similar places have all fallen, and, specifically, have all fallen on the same account. That is, the nominator's clear misunderstanding of WP:GEOLAND (even though the first time he was told of it at AfD was in September). Equally lacking is any kind of WP:BEFORE. All things considered, I think there is enough questionable judgement demonstrated w.r.t. these particular nominations that WP:IAR should apply. Better we take the time to educate the nominator in WP:BEFORE than occupy the community's time unecessarilly in multiple discussions on the same issues. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kampung Jahang[edit]

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

No source and notability. angys (Talk Talk) 08:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GEOLAND as a "legally recognised place", for which i have now added a source to the article. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:22, 29 December 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. Sandstein 10:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Squarcia[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic subject, self-written biography, multiple issues, unreliable sources GenoV84 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the Talk page: This page has multiple issues that make it an Unencyclopedic subject, especially for being a NAU article.

It's clear that the article was written by Giorgio Squarcia himself disguised as a user, under the nickname of Gaio valerio catullo (msg). He never edited any page other than this.

Furthermore, there isn't any reliable source that could prove the introduction of the "docu-fiction" genre in Italy by him, which makes all this page even more embarassing. Basically, he has written his own biography to promote his curriculum vitae on Wikipedia; by reading it, you can see that Squarcia is promoting a grandiose image of himself and talks about it in a self-promoting fashion (he did the same thing on IMDb). In my opinion, that is the worst part.

In light of the fact, i propose to delete this page due to its unreliability and "ulterior motive" for the writing of it.--GenoV84 (msg) 23:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The user Indiabongo13 (msg) too was created by Squarcia, and has made only one edit, which served as a praise for Squarcia; in the Talk page he says that Squarcia's biography is "very interesting", and Gaio valerio catullo (Squarcia's main user account) responds to him...self. It's embarassing, and ridiculous... sounds like a joke, someone that thinks "look, how great I Am!" and responds to himself "yes, how great you are!", to promote his curriculum on Wikipedia. I have nothing else to say.--GenoV84 (msg) 14:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: When commenting please stay on topic, cite policy and or guidelines where ;possible and be brief.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing enough to suggest any sort of notability, except for a lawsuit against him for trying to make a film on a massacre that happened in Italy years ago without the permission from the victims' parents; btw, Squarcia wrote his own biography on it.wikipedia too, and it was deleted for the same reasons i explained above: Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Giorgio John Squarcia.--GenoV84 (msg) 04:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 28 December 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. Sandstein 10:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Slav Institute[edit]

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

Lack of notability and reliable sources. Many incorrect statement in such short-short article (it has not national research university status, staff and number of students is exaggerated (see official numbers in state official report, section V), it has not official branches (same report, section I)). The similar article in ru-wiki ru:Международный славянский институт имени Г. Р. Державина (by same author) was deleted due to lack of reliable sources and advertising. Alex Spade (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:17, 27 December 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 and redirect to Buckethead. Sandstein 10:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Coats of Claude[edit]

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

Not notable per NALBUM; adding an Amazon link doesn't make it any better. No decent reviews available online. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't checked them all, but there's got to be a good chance that everything with a bluelinked article under Buckethead discography is non-notable and could be put up for AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect name only to the band: Buckethead. Not independently notable and no need to preserve article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Suitable target for merge & redirect not found. No prejudice against a redirect getting made if a target is found. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Group booking[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a repository of unsourced articles, nor a collection of the blindingly obvious(mostly). Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there must be some article to which we can merge and redirect this. As it stands, we don't even have an article on the general concept of regular "booking" in this sense. bd2412 T 03:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any likely articles to redirect to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can't find a suitable redirect target, rename Reservation (booking) and rejigger the text of this article. The list of things that can be reserved can go in the first paragraph after an intro is cobbled together, then group bookings can constitute the second. I suppose I could do that (unless there is another ~~sucker~~ volunteer?). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel this is a nessersary article for informing people about theatre.theatrelover2467 (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sock vote struck. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources = WP:V fail = mandatory deletion. No objection to a sourced recreation as an article instead of a dicdef. Sandstein 10:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Lego themes. Sandstein 10:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Scooby-Doo[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. —Formal Dude^(talk) 08:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There's probably a good merge target for this, but I'm not overly familiar with Lego articles and what lists might exist. There's a fair amount of secondary reliable coverage ([46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]) but most of it is simply announcements. -- ferret (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List of Lego video games. --Izno (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno and Zxcvbnm: List of Lego themes is probably a better target. It's not a video game, but a theme. (Multiple sets, included in Dimensions, a straight-to-dvd film, and one mobile game). -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess there's probably sig cov out there for most themes, which is why most have (had) their own page. I agree List of Lego video games is the wrong page in this case. --Izno (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~List of Lego video games~~ List of Lego themes_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Lego themes. Some coverage exists, but perhaps not enough for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 29 December 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. Sandstein 10:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Fun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Can't find anything about this compilation. Coin945 (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)~~ Changed to Keep I have improved the article myself using available sources and believe it is notable.--Coin945 (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claims of notability in the previous AfD seem to have been merely assertions, as no sources were provided. Cant find any secondary sources. Non-notable. --Brustopher (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Switch[reply]

Switching to Keep clearly I was wrong about the lack of sources. --Brustopher (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I was able to find a fair number of mentions, including some reliable sources, albeit many were tangential: Small Wars Journal Anthology mention, Article from The Independent, very brief mention in a book on video games, another brief mention, and another brief mention. Here are a couple more, possibly not reliable sources: 1, 2. The game package itself looks like garbage, but it does seem like it may be borderline notable as a generator of controversy.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not have entries for every home-made videogame ever released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.25.196 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and withdrawn~~ Comment After improving the article I believe there's a notable article here. @PohranicniStraze:, would you care to help me improve it to send it to WP:DYK? It's a controversial but important piece of video gaming history, methinks.--Coin945 (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI this can't be closed as withdrawn because others have already commented in favor of deletion (otherwise this would have been a Speedy Keep candidate). However you can strikethrough your nomination statement to make it more evident if you wish. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coin945:, looks like you've done an excellent job expanding the article, well done! PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can someone with a Higbeam account read through these sources and add the content? https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm="Islamic+Fun"--Coin945 (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coin945: I think you should request at WP:RX, volunteers there may help. Though I don't know how long one may have to wait. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources are enough to how meeting WP:GNG, it was very controversial in the past and received wider coverage from multiple reliable sources more than the present state of the article shows. But notability is not temporary WP:NOTTEMP. Therefore we can't say delete it since its popularity has waned. Ammarpad (talk) 05:11, 29 December 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. Sandstein 10:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of video poker games[edit]

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

All of its entries are redirected to Video poker, or have been taken to AFD because they should be (failing WP:GNG). This leaves the article as a content fork of that mother article. Coin945 (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure content fork._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also the redirect list entries in the list should be considered for deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 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 per WP:SNOW. Notability is obvious. – Joe (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Osita Chinedu Nebo[edit]

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

unremarkable living person. —Formal Dude^(talk) 08:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do you really meant it? Article content doesn't determine notability. This is a person who passes multiple criterion. He passes WP:NACADEMIC #6 having been former vice chancellor of one of top Nigerian universities. And further passes WP:POLITICIAN #1 for serving as National minister, member of National executive council. Ammarpad (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A former federal minister and Vice Chancellor. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep passes WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Obvious nom didn't do any WP:BEFORE. Smartyllama (talk) 14:03, 27 December 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. Sandstein 10:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Catholics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: as per same criteria as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Catholic Actresses and Actors, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Catholic Criminals, and List of Catholic American Actors, etc. List is a subjective measure of importance and devotion. Also, term "American Catholics" is inaccurate, proper term is "American Roman Catholics", other wording suggests some sort of schism (i.e. Old Catholics, Greek Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, Traditional Catholics). Quis separabit? 07:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- if comprehensive any such list would be so long as to be completely useless. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As indiscriminate as you can get with a list of people. Nominator explains it quite well. 19:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete: apart from the fact that it should probably be renamed List of US Roman Catholics, the page Catholic Church in the United States claims that there are over 70 million members, so the list is going to be either ridiculously incomplete or totally unwieldy. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not really seeing anything that has changed since the last deletion discussion, and the nomination is putting forth a dubious argument of "subjective measure". "List of Catholic actors" is a cross-categorization of religion and profession, but this is of nationality and religion, which are not at all subjective or indiscriminate, particularly as Catholicism is the largest denomination in the United States. The arguments that the list will becomes "unmanageable" or "unwieldy" are without merit, as only notable people would ever be listed in a Wikipedia article. ValarianB (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete about a quarter of the US population is Catholic. This is a group so large that creating a list of them is just not doable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure how it is going to help encyclopedia, list are meant to be informative and not directory. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 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. The deletion arguments seemed more thorough and based on relevant policies. Killiondude (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Morse[edit]

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

Fails GNG.Typical promo-spam.Non-rel. biz journals or paid stuff.Nothing non-trivial in RS. Winged Blades^Godric 07:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Keep~~ Delete: From 100 Google search results and from Google Books results, per WP:GNG the topic did not receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, therefore it is presumed to not be suitable for a stand-alone article. Analyzing the sources presented by Jemima1418 (below), per GNG, topic, although not solidly, may actually receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, therefore it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Taking into account info by Scope creep, below, that one of the sources may be pr spam, I tried finding another reliable source with significant coverage of the topic, but I was not able to find it, even though I may have looked for 30-60 minutes. Therefore I think that the topic, although it has received coverage it has not received it in a significant way, so per GNG, probably the topic is not suitable for a stand-alone article, unless more evidence is provided to the contrary. Thinker78 (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Edited 08:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Edited 07:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Marginal evidence of notability cited here but additional evidence can be found in Songwhale. Article needs work on WP:PROMOTIONAL aspects but deletion is not required to address this. ~Kvng (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is another piece of promo-spam.Winged Blades^Godric 16:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Additional evidence of notability is demonstrated in these sources, which could be added to page content:

Bencivenga, Natalie. 1 Sep 2014. South Side entrepreneur turns lemons into LemonAID. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Benz, Kate. 3 Nov 2015. Wedding Didn't Happen, But Pittsburgh entrepreneur looks on bright side. TribLive.
Ryman, Richard. 29 Aug 2017. Japanese Packers' fans passion pays off with game invite and documentary. Green Bay Press-Gazette.
Editor. 31 Aug 2017. Documentary about Packers fandom in Japan seeks kickstarter funding. Milwaukee Independent.
Ryman, Richard. 14 Sep 2017. Love of Packers made easy decision on hosting Japanese fans. Green Bay Press-Gazette.
Shih, Savannah. 25 Oct 2017. Japanese Packers Fans Go Wild at Green Bay Game. HuffPost. Jemima1418 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PBS-affiliate WQED piece on Songwhale
Flanigan, Kathy. 9 Oct 2008. Stepping up for a purpose: New footwear line benefits charitable effort. Journal Sentinel.
Green, Elwin. 21 Oct 2008. Songwhale serves Steelers fans with 'premium content.' Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Lindeman, Teresa F. 9 Jul 2011. Team success can spell marketing success. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Cloonan, Anne. 26 Apr 2012. Conference immerses high school students in job possibilities. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Schmitz, Jon. 30 Apr 2012. Children can play game by texting at bus stops. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Jemima1418 (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG. Only trivial mention, no significant coverage.
Fails GNG. Only trivial mention, no significant coverage.
May meet GNG.
Fails GNG. Only trivial mention, no significant coverage.
Per GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."
Doesn't seem to meet GNG. It appears to be a trivial mention and not significant coverage.
Seems to meet GNG.
Fails GNG. Only trivial mention, no significant coverage.
Seems to meet GNG.
See reply 5 above.
See reply 5 above.
See reply 5 above. Thinker78 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't included this as a source since I'm not sure if it counts as secondary, but there is also an interview conducted by Joan Raymond in the New York Times. Jemima1418 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to GNG, sources have to be independent of the subject, works produced by the article's subject are excluded; therefore this New York Times article fails GNG. Thinker78 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some additional responses to Winged Blades^Godric section "Comments by nominator" Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jemima1418, Kvng. WP:PROMOTIONAL is not the major criteria to delete, in future wiki editors can add few more sources to make it neutral. Genome$100 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about you stop disrupting other AFDs to cover-up your main purposes of promoting OMICS and Co.?Winged Blades^Godric 10:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The references in the article, and above are not particularly strong, and seem to be a mix of markering skits, pamphlets, press relaases, trade paper articles relating to his company, not him. Several of them are the same subject, and only mention him by name. The Songwhale company isn't him. This is a WP:BLP article. scope_creep (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References are not particularly strong but some of them may or seem to meet GNG. This is one gray case, ~~but I lean wobbly in keeping the article.~~ And, per WP:ATD, "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first". Thinker78 (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Edited 07:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Thinker78 says here that there is some evidence of GNG which merits keeping the page while encouraging revision of the page to improve it. Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Heavily promotional article, which violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. Such advertising breaks WP Terms of Use and threatens the retainment of licence to operate. Whatever happens, the article will be undergoing an extensive copyedit, after this WP:AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article may need rewriting, but the topic may be notable, so it probably shouldn't be deleted, unless it is found to be non-notable or in other unspecified cases. I don't see it as a severe case warranting deletion. A copyright issue may be a severe case, but usually what happens is that the offending information is deleted and the page history containing it made unavailable, but the article itself is not deleted. What do you mean with "threatens the retainment of licence to operate"? Whose licence? Thinker78 (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's licence to operate as a charity. I don't see any copyright issue in it. I understand the processes on WP very well. When a copyedit is completed on the article, almost all the ref's for the subject will be gone, as most of those present are the company. I'll do it today, and an accurate reflection of the articles content will appear. Ty Morse is two articles in one. It conflates the company Songwhale with him. Ty Morse!=Songwhale. Ty Morse article is WP:BLP. The Songwhale is a WP:ORG article. Almost all references in the Ty Morse articles are about his companies. scope_creep (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator--

{{collapse top|Hmm...Sources and sources...But, let's analyse them.Shan't we?[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|''Winged Blades'']][[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|Godric]] 10:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)}}

Bencivenga, Natalie. 1 Sep 2014. South Side entrepreneur turns lemons into LemonAID. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
- A trivial name-mention as the Best Man of a wedding.I have strong doubts about editorial practices.Many article resembles PR Spam.

Yes, I understand your point here and for the next one. Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benz, Kate. 3 Nov 2015. Wedding Didn't Happen, But Pittsburgh entrepreneur looks on bright side. TribLive.
- Same comments as to the one just before.
Ryman, Richard. 29 Aug 2017. Japanese Packers' fans passion pays off with game invite and documentary. Green Bay Press-Gazette.
- Paid-PR Spam.Press-Gazettes etc. ae typical business--speak for PR collection etc.Fails RS.

This is the largest in-print publication in Green Bay, Wisconsin and it is part of the USA Today network. This is a local paper, not a PR collection.Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor. 31 Aug 2017. Documentary about Packers fandom in Japan seeks kickstarter funding. Milwaukee Independent.
- A trivial name metion.Have strong doubts about it's editorial standards and whether this is a RS.

The article is about a project initiated by the subject, so rather than a trivial mention, this seems to meet GNG since the subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Additionally, it might be valuable to review the "About Us" for Milwaukee Independent which will clarify the journalistic integrity of it as an RS. Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryman, Richard. 14 Sep 2017. Love of Packers made easy decision on hosting Japanese fans. Green Bay Press-Gazette.
- Same comments as to Ref 3.

Again, this is a local paper that's part of the USA Today network. Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shih, Savannah. 25 Oct 2017. Japanese Packers Fans Go Wild at Green Bay Game. HuffPost.
- A lone trivial name mention.

Again, this article is about the subject and one of his recent projects, so I would think this would count for GNG.Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PBS-affiliate WQED piece on Songwhale
- We are talking about TY Morse, not Songwhale.Notability is NOTINHERITED

Understood. But again, Ty Morse is the subject and main participant in this piece for PBS, so does notability have to be completely separate from the company? Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flanigan, Kathy. 9 Oct 2008. Stepping up for a purpose: New footwear line benefits charitable effort. Journal Sentinel.
- A lone trivial name mention.
Green, Elwin. 21 Oct 2008. Songwhale serves Steelers fans with 'premium content.' Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
- Same comments as to Ref 1.
Lindeman, Teresa F. 9 Jul 2011. Team success can spell marketing success. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
- Same comments as to Ref 1.
Cloonan, Anne. 26 Apr 2012. Conference immerses high school students in job possibilities. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
- I don't see any mention!
Schmitz, Jon. 30 Apr 2012. Children can play game by texting at bus stops. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
- I don't see any mention!

Please don't throw up every G-Hit the subject retrieves!

My apologies. I was trying to find additional sources beyond those used in the article to support the discussion of GNG. I tried to be discriminating in my choices of references but may have worked too fast. Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thus to conclude, there is still a comprehensive lack of non-trivial sustained coverage that is needed to make the subject deserve a WP entry.Winged Blades^Godric 10:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. How do you know the Green Bay Press-Gazette article is pr spam? 2. The PBS affiliate addresses the topic about Ty Morse, it doesn't just mention him. And per GNG, the topic, which doesn't need to be the main topic, seems to have significant coverage in the source. 3. In my opinion, the 2008 Pittsburgh Post article, per WP:GNG, addresses the topic directly and in detail. How do you define "in detail"? I see that the article let us know Ty Morse's name, gender, age, job title, place of work, a couple of details of his past, and a location where he has lived. I think that is some detail. Happy new year! Thinker78 (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In reply to Thinker78. The phrase When Ty Morse walked into a restaurant in Tokyo. is repeated 5 times, on web, means it is a press release (or explicity PR scam from WP's viewpoint regarding this ). The press release has been offered, [paid] to five different news outlets, in different area and intructed to write it, in that manner. So any ref that is related to that PR, is not RS. There is no converage, and the subject is not independently notable to deserve an article. scope_creep (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In reply to scope_creep. The Green Bay Press-Gazette and the Pittsburgh Press-Gazette are part of Gannett Company, which is one of the largest publishers of newspapers, including USA Today. How are articles in the newspaper "PR Spam"? The article was probably syndicated by the USA Today affiliates, which resulted in repeated information.Jemima1418 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots and lots of low quality references do not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In reply to John Pack Lambert. These citations are primarily from newspapers. How are newspapers low quality references?Jemima1418 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the comments analyzing the references. Many of those newspaper articles are trivial mentions of Ty Morse, therefore are low quality references. Please read WP:GNG to determine how is notability determined. Thinker78 (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional considerations: 1. The Shelby Le Duc article, which is already cited in the Ty Morse entry, "Japanese Packers fans get full Green Bay experience," was published in USA Today and includes references to Ty Morse as well as a video the USA Today team prepared in connection with their article. Is this relevant for notability? 2. This article has been posted on wikipedia since 2014 and went through the Articles for Creation process. Why is it necessary to delete the article now? Can't it be edited to resolve the issues with the article?Jemima1418 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Scope_creep speculated that that article is public relations spam, and as such not a reliable reference. I tried to look for an additional reference and didn't find any. 2. How do you know it went through the Articles for Creation process? Any registered editor was able to post an article directly in 2014, as far as I know. Whether it is necessary to delete the article or not is going to be determined by consensus here. Why now? Because the article came to the attention of an editor, for any number of reasons, and decided to propose it for deletion. If the issue of the article is determined to be lack of notability of the topic then it can't just be edited, it will be deleted. Read all the comments here to find out the rationale of the various editors, and you can post replies and maybe address the concerns of those who opine the article should be deleted, like submitting new evidence of notability. Thinker78 (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In reply to Thinker78. Thanks for your suggestions. 1. Scope_creep has made an assertion that the article is spam; however, what is that assertion based on? Shelby Le Duc is a staff writer at the Green Bay Press-Gazette, which is part of the USA Today network. And the multiple appearances of the same story, which suggested to Scope_creep that the article was spam, are all appearing in affiliates of the USA Today network, which more likely suggests that because of the story's relevance USA Today chose to syndicate it and run it in multiple markets. As for additional references, the story is referred to in two different local news sources listed here: the Milwaukee Independent and the Green Bay Press-Gazette. 2. Evidence that this article went through the Articles of Creation process is viewable in the article history. Jemima1418 (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To clarify, the references here are in addition to those already cited in the article. For example, doesn't the Alex Nixon article, "Lawrenceville firm Songwhale benefits from growth in e-commerce," which is primarily about Ty Morse and was published in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, the second largest news publication in that city, meet RS and GNG? Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't mentioned this Nixon article until now. You should have made it more clear that it is new evidence of notability. I read it before, and I was undecided about its degree of detail on the topic, so I didn't use it as reference. It might or might not meet GNG. But I think it shouldn't be so difficult to find reliable sources that speak directly and in detail about a topic if it is notable. That's why now I lean on deletion, although I am a bit unsure if this topic is or is not notable. It is a gray case. Thinker78 (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the additional criteria for notability of people, WP:ANYBIO, the person may be nominated for a major award several times. The subject has been nominated for the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year award twice. Jemima1418 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hamara Tiranga[edit]

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

No indication of notability. There's one passing mention of it in the Indian papers, Bollywood Hungama has an IMDb-style page of rough details, but apart from that, I can't find any significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. It appears to be fairly off-the-radar of mainstream sources, and so, is probably not notable. Also hasn't proven that principle photography has begun per WP:NFF, so that's another problem. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rewrite the article with national/international coverage than regional news @Digittyze, can keep after rewriting if qualifies WP:RS. 12:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Genome$100 (talk)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funds of knowledge[edit]

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

Not notable, I've tempted to call it WP:FRINGE. Natureium (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, the subject seems more fitting as a subsection in an education article; the content needs to be relocated or removed. Scriblerian1 (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Kids Running Series[edit]

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

WP:GNG Natureium (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Haizlip[edit]

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

Delete: fails notability as television personality; overtly promotional article. Quis separabit? 07:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless proven above points, delete. -- 29 December (UTC) User:Theatrelover2467 User talk:Theatrelover2467

Sock vote struck. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:29, 29 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Coden[edit]

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

Vehicle prototype with no media coverage. How does it pass WP:GNG? Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is WP:CONSENSUS that any manned aircraft that has flown is notable. The question here is, did the Coden actually fly? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the aircraft design has received coverage in independent third party sources, as cited, so it meets WP:GNG. These sorts of development projects are often kept under wraps until production is commenced and so it can be hard to confirm if it has flown yet or not. I will see what can be done to expand the article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find no evidence that this design has flown yet or that the project itself is notable. Yes there are third-party references, but only a few and they are all to the project not to any actual aircraft. That is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG, this is at best an example of WP:TOOSOON. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly any aircraft that flew is notable but the converse is not true as we include many aircraft that never did and never will, eg (at random) the Arado E.381. I'd keep an eye on Jane's for updates, but UK austerity means that my library has ended it annual purchase.TSRL (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We only include a non-flying project where other aspects of the project make it notable. For example all the projects of all the major aircraft manufacturers were part of the overall sweep of aviation history and many independently-written books and journal articles attest to their notability. But just because I tout some kitchen-table daydream to a few trade shows and put up a web site, will not make it notable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to be fair this is more than a "kitchen-table daydream". We do know for sure that a prototype was constructed and exhibited at AERO 2015 and did attract aviation media attention. It just isn't clear if it has flown or certification started yet, but it isn't purely vapourware. - Ahunt (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kitchen table, kitchen schmable. That is not being fair, it is picking nits in my wording. We don't include every half-baked carcass that never made it into the sky. There is not enough coverage of the AERO show to pass GNG. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary to date So far we have two delete votes and two keep votes. Guidelines say that the quality of argument on either side is more important than the headcount. To summarise that: we have a design which has never flown and has not been shown to be notable in any other way. Beyond a couple of passing mentions in trade rags, absolutely no evidence has been brought that this topic passes GNG. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Steelpillow, the closing admin can judge that for themselves; you don't need to get out the WP:BLUDGEON. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies if you feel bludgeoned. But we have had two extensions of time, I felt that things needed a bit of a prod. I am not interested in winning or losing but in establishing whether there is any evidence base for notability. By challenging supporters of the article up front, this may encourage them to bring any they know of to the table. I was speaking to them rather than to the closing admin. Feel free to continue this line of discussion on my own talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON, Ahunt, you state above "the aircraft design has received coverage in independent third party sources, as cited, so it meets WP:GNG.", happy with World Directory of Light Aviation but the other is from Coden Gyro, the company that appears to be developing the aircraft so not useable for notability, do you have any others (i was unable to find any with a quick gsearch ..... damn that goog:))? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The WDLA is the sole independent third party ref I have for the aircraft, although there are resume sources from one of the designers available. There are also more first party refs, like the manufactuirer's Facebook page, although it has not been recently updated. - Ahunt (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It won't help with more independent refs, but I have taken the step of writing to the company to inquire about the status of the aircraft, including asking whether it has flown or not. I realize that won't be "citable", but would make this discussion a bit more conclusive. I'll report back here if I hear anything from them. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 29 December 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 as A7 / G11. (non-admin closure) K.e.coffman (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uloop[edit]

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

Not much in WP:RS to pass WP:NWEB. Alexa rank of 91,127 (April 2014) is not enough for notability. Störm (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; a company of 12 employees is way too insignificant; the content / sourcing is spam. I requested a speedy deletion; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:10, 28 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insidetrak[edit]

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

Nothing of significant kind in WP:RS. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could only find one source [55], and even that of unknown reliability. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 06:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. Found three reliable independent sources (SMH, news.com.au, and SmartCompany) that are more than trivial mentions of the company. Probably sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Kb.au (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep There are some non trivial references, but still partially primary. Aoziwe (talk) 12:20, 27 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Employment Guide[edit]

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

No real coverage found. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has a hard-to-search name, but I can't find any sources. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 06:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it doesn't seem to have its own job listings, they appear to be links to those on other sites. Looks like it is probably just an affiliate marketing site. Shritwod (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:53, 27 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LinkUp (website)[edit]

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

Nothing of significant kind in WP:RS found. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable website, mostly links to primary sources. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 06:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks spammy and reads like an advert to me - fails WP:SPIP. Also, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:10, 27 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nakhavaly brothers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unremarkable band (renomination) —cnzx (talk • contribs) 05:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Collaborating with famous people does not make them famous. I can find no indication in news sources, allmusic.com, or anything else to indicate this group is notable. Existing sources are primary sources or blogs. Nothing to go on here. Previously deleted five times, 3 as this title [56] and twice more as just "Nakhavaly" [57]. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely fails WP:GNG. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starset (programming language)[edit]

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

Non-notable programming language —cnzx (talk • contribs) 05:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of non-notable? Sounds very subjective to me. Dzinoviev (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dzinoviev: WP:GNG is the general rule for notability, although more specific things may come into play (in this case WP:NSOFT). Obviously any interpretation of any qualitative rule is going to be subjective, but this is the best we can do -- my judgement is that the subject of this article isn't notable because it I can only find primary sources and passing/trivial mentions in secondary sources, which are not enough to warrant an article. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 00:39, 31 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Abou Bakr[edit]

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

NN-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Vanity article.reddogsix (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete besides the fact the article engages in a lot of unneeded promotional language, the article is one of the worst cases I have seen of being written like a CV. It even has the drawback of being written in bullet point instead of prose style. While this could be fixed, the problem shows the general issue of being not an encyclopedia article at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 27 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Meizhi Mandarin School[edit]

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

I do not believe this article meets notability guidelines. This is one of hundreds of small private schools in Shanghai. It also reads like an advertisement and the user who created the article seems to have created this article on Wikipedia, and edited other related articles solely to advertise or promote the school (WP:SPA) — Meizhish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. If this article is deleted I would suggest all links to this article also be deleted from the related articles that the user edited. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. Not the sort of school or business that deserves an article, unless there is good evidence of notability which is lacking. I also note that the same editor has created an article on it on the Japanese Wiki, but there is nothing in the Chinese WP which also suggests it is not notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete specialized specific course schools like this need to have good sources to show notability, not just advertising. The type of school that has default notability is a full curriculum, secondary school, or an accredited tertiary school, not an institution with such a narrow mission.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable language school, of which there are tens of thousands in the world. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:29, 30 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lester E. Taylor III[edit]

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN, created as a promotional article by a now-banned WP:SPA named CityOfEastOrange. Rusf10 (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was 39 when elected, there have been lots of members of congress younger than that, so if that makes him East Orange's second youngest mayor, the city has either very few mayors or they tend to be old. Either way this is an example of a totally non-notable person of a not truly major location, the type of local mayor that for some reason we have an excessive number of articles on for New Jersey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted by nominator, it clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. There's nothing in the article to suggest encyclopedic notability otherwise. If the mayor of every town in America got a Wiki page, that'd be a whole lot of unnecessary BLPs to deal with. Shelbystripes (talk)

Notability is not the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia, especially for mayors who are always part of a larger topic known to be notable, and thus ATD always prevails over DEL8. Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. ~Kvng (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NPOL, and I can't find any other sources on a cursory search. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Popularly elected mayors of towns of size 64,000 are well into the range of mayors presumed notable solely because of the importance of their position. For mayors, ATD prevails over DEL8, so WP:V and WP:DUE are the controlling policies for inclusion. Alternatives here include East Orange, New Jersey, Mayors of East Orange, New Jersey, and History of East Orange, New Jersey. As for whether this topic is notable=standalone, I'd rather it be merged, but the decision makers for non-deletion notability are the content contributors, who often prefer the organizational simplicity of a standalone article, and the normal process of such content decision-making is paralyzed during AfD. This is a common tension in deletion discussions where AfD nominators claim the right to be absentee landlords so as to tell the content contributors not to make standalone articles, but are not willing themselves to participate in the hands-on decision making and on the talk pages of the articles. Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't say he meets any of the points outlined by WP:NPOL. Honestly, the only thing that applies to him is this: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Safiya Nygaard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Inadequate independent in-depth coverage to satisfy biographical notability. Most of the references are her own, or to unreliable sources such as Facebook. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safiya Nygaard, which came to the same conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally added {{db-g4}} since the article had already been deleted via AfD. It was removed by the editor previously heavily involved in creating the draft, but who is not technically the creator; if I'm relying on WP:IAR too much, feel free to undo this. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC) (corrected template link at 00:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like G4 to me, but I tried to tag it and the nomination was removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI am not the creator of this page, but I did make multiple edits and worked on it until I decided that it was ready to be published.

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is now a fully-fledged article. Safiya Nygaard is YouTuber with over 3 million subscribers, and there are YouTubers with far fewers who have Wikipedia pages. I understand that there may be issues with this page, but I have improved it from its original draft so that it is publish-ready. Instead of deleting it senselessly, it would be more ideal to work to improve it.

I read that sources from the subject themselves are not reliable, but when it comes to Internet Personalities, their own, self-created content - be in videos, Tweets, Instagram posts, or information found on their official Facebook pages - is the most reliable kind of source we have. Most YouTuber pages make reference to social media and self-created content - I don't see why this one cannot.

Comment - User:Starklinson appears to be suggesting that a different standard of notability be applied to Internet personalities. The means to discuss a different policy for Internet personalities would be at Village pump (policy), possibly followed by a Request for Comments to the notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this page does not meet the requirements to remain a page on Wikipedia. Essentially every single line and piece of information is cited, which is more than I can say for other articles I have both seen and worked on. It is in the correct format for a YouTuber. If wish to make further edits or improve the article in any way, feel free to. But I do not, personally, think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starklinson (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet wikipedia guidelines because it solely relies on first party self published sources with no reliable third party independent sources to show notability. We don't make articles on YouTubers based on how on how many subscribers they have, we make them if they show notability which this article does not have. This is the same reason why the article was deleted the first time around, the article still presents with the same issue. TheDeviantPro (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third party sources that establishes notability. TheDeviantPro (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Starklinson - How does this version of the article differ from the version that was deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more than three times as long and has completely different sourcing. It's even worse sourcing, though. —Cryptic 05:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are mostly self-published, and the remainder don't amount to significant coverage. —Cryptic 05:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not saying that a different standard of notability should be applied to articles about Internet personalities. I am simply asking how, for example, a 'Draw My Life' video or a 'Boyfriend Tag' video would not count as a reliable source when these kinds of sources give detailed information about the Internet personality by the Internet personality. How can we find a source more reliable than that? I have seen other articles use Tweets, videos, and information garnered from social media by the Internet personalities themselves as sources. I am simply taking example from what I have witnessed on this website and asking what kinds of sources can be used if not those. I am not suggesting that articles like these should be held to a lesser standard when it comes to notability than others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starklinson (talk • contribs) 05:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that self-published sources are necessarily unreliable; it's that they're not evidence of notability. See here for the long version. —Cryptic 05:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Starklinson moved Draft:Safiya Nygaard to Safiya Nygaard on 26 December 2017 with the edit summary "Complete and ready for publication".

That was incorrect because only four of the twenty-three inline citations are independent of Nygaard, and of those four: one is a passing mention in a student newspaper, and three don't mention the subject. This is a problem because articles are supposed to be based mainly on secondary sources, with primary sources used to a lesser extent and, to avoid original research, carefully. It is also a problem because notability can only be demonstrated by significant coverage in independent sources.

Returning this to Draft is a good alternative to deletion because the topic is plausibly notable. Quick searches found some coverage in reliable sources, especially women's magazines and media that report on vloggers: [58][59][60][61][62][63] Two of these were published after the first deletion discussion. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have started adding more reliable sources into the article. - User:Starklinson —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable YouTube personality. The article could use some work, but enough secondary sources establishing notability exist. Sro23 (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is too heavily not reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable per GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Refbombed with primary sources. Many references to the same source (at least 10), per above comments of "first party self-published sources", like the YouTube sources from the subject, might count as providing referencing for content, but all count as one for notability, and content is not the issue here. Prima facie it looks good and also makes "digging through them" harder. Those that are not YouTube are mainly advertising articles. When you click on them you have to wait for a pop-up ad, read it, or wait for a time period to delete. This is advertising and annoying. Refbombing is a good tactic because some (and those that don't check) will think it is referenced enough to be notable. Otr500 (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: A subject that is "plausibly notable", especially a BLP, should be looked at very closely. I saw the article, AFD tag, then the references. My first thought was, "WOW! Twenty-one references". Then I proceeded to the AFD and read down. I found a user attempting to save an article (not a bad thing), that included arguments of other stuff exists, and six other references. The first three are about quitting Buzzfeed, the next two are magazine type articles on melting lip-stick, and the last about see-through pants. The references on the article include 10 references on the article are from the subject, reference # 11 Boldly, Ladylike and #13 BuzzFeed, Ladylike is junk, two are duplicates not primarily about the subject. Alright, I am tired and a review of the sources are "not" enough (14 of the 21 are self- or refbombs) with reliability giving notability". Just a bunch of references either primary, or several placed to make an article look notable. Can of worms to start including every v-logger with followers (how many is subjective and for MANY future considerations) on the internet. ---- NOT COOL. Otr500 (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry DeCaire[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable comic book artist. The article currently has no evidence of notability, and the sources provided in the first AFD are a blog (with a link to nonexistent source) and a soft-news bit with no significant coverage of the subject. Here are the sources currently in the article:

[64] is an interview transcript, not something produced or approved by anyone with a solid reputation in the field. The source itself is a sophisticated fan site.
[65] is solely his publications; no solid coverage.
[66] is a self-published source by a non-expert: again, a sophisticated fan site.

I checked the first five pages of results in Google, both for "Gerald DeCaire" and "Jerry DeCaire", and both in normal results and books. I only found a few items that were worth checking, and none pass as reliable:

[67] Passing mention, and it's published by a self-publisher
[68] News report that's obviously dependent on what DeCaire told the reporter; the reporter is an expert on local events in Dillingham, not an expert on comic book artists.
[69] His appearance in a Michigan database, and like the second source in the article, it's just his publications with no real coverage of the man himself.

Unless someone can find better sources on this person, I see no reason to keep the article. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Eight years have gone by and still no sources? I'll change my vote if someone can come up with a source.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources are few. There's this: [70], and the fact that he's an illustrator for major Marvel publications. But what I'm finding thus far doesn't help much. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the Alaska NPR station, the reporter for this newspaper is an expert on local events in Roseburg, Oregon, not an expert on comic book artists, and his coverage is obviously based on what Declair's told him. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of sources that would lead to passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Marvel publishes 80+ comics a month, so drawing a few freelance doesn't confer notability. I can find no evidence of awards or works that earned him particular acclaim. I found a few reliable sources, but they're local outlets reporting on a local resident. Fails WP:ARTIST. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:35, 27 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desiree Lai[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable DJ; while one of the references in the article does appear to be about here, that's about it. All other hits I could find were more about her stations than she herself. A redirect to any of her stations is also possible, but considering she's worked for more than one radio station, I'm not sure if that's possible. In any case, I'm not opposed to a redirect. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been a regular DJ on 3 different prominent nationwide radio stations in Singapore for over a decade. This clearly makes the subject notable. Hill Gate (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly unprecedented: over here in the Philippines we have DJs who've worked for more than one radio station but who don't have articles. Working for several stations isn't an automatic sign of notability; conversely, working for only a single station doesn't exclude notability. If anything, it's if independent sources or awards have acknowledged said personality's work. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a presenter for one radio station, even if it is different radio stations over time, is just not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only secondary sources not about her, all others related to radio station. Thus, non-notable R22-3877 (talk) 02:27, 28 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salam Abu Amneh[edit]

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

Fails both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, and the article may have been written by the subject. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides the POV problems in the article itself Nowadays, lives with her family in Reineh village, Galilee, north of occupied (48) Palestine. (better known as Reineh, Israel) - this activist/folk-singer simply doesn't come close to meeting GNG or MUSICBIO.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO.No real WP:RS exist.--Shrike (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The POV pushing alone is very disturbing, but there is just no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makeleta Stephan[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; extremely and clearly notable under the general notability guideline. A google news search revealed coverage from ABC, a German publication, Radio New Zealand and several other publications. Copper Dreamer (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few passing references do not a pass of GNG make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First two sources cited by Copper Dreamer are not passing references and that's enough to get to WP:GNG as far as I'm concerned. ~Kvng (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references are enough to pass WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. In addition to the three sources listed above, here are two more: [71], [72]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Participation in international competition and the above sources are enough to meet WP:GNG. Also other language versions of the article have more resources for possible expansion. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:34, 30 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Baena[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for skiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:15, 27 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

César Baena[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable skier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Lacks significant coverage. Did appear once at a world Nordic championship where he was the last finisher in every event (except for one event where he finished 116th out of 120). Don't believe that's enough to show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not only were there no cogent arguments made in favour of deletion, but the nomination itself veers close to WP:SKCRIT #1. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of life[edit]

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

This should be deleted and turned into a redirect to philosophy. the content is really just a dictionary definition, followed by a link to a related term, and a very poor attempt at original research on how to group various philosophies. philosophy IS about "philosophy of life". its really just a convenient catch phrase, after which one describes ones personal philosophy, usually an aphorism or 2. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this is an informative article that is too specific to be merged with the general article on philosophy. It contains too much information to be written off as a dictionary definition. Vorbee (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. "Delete and redirect to X" is only appropriate when there's something fundamentally problematic with the current content, so problematic that it needs to be hidden. You're free to redirect it yourself without an AFD. Moreover, I agree with Vorbee that it shouldn't be redirected to Philosophy because that's more general, but the topic seems closer to worldview, and again there's no reason to delete something if it could be a plausible redirect to another article. I have no opinion on whether we should keep this as an article or convert it into a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 27 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kakao bank[edit]

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

2/3 promotional, 1/3 original research, and no clear indication of notability. I get the impression almost all the refs are in-house productions (can't be sure because I don't read Korean, verification would be welcome). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. —cnzx 00:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corporate 'cruft on a nn business. WP:TNT eligible. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is predominently (and unsurprisingly) per WP:GEOLAND: the second such for this nominator, I believe. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kampung Chulek[edit]

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

No source and notability. angys (Talk Talk) 08:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is a populated place, and its existence is not disputed. Don't we keep all such cases? Please do tag it to call for sources, e.g. with {{nofootnotes}} or other tag. --Doncram (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: this is just a small village that may only have about hundred population and NO NOTABILITY. angys (Talk Talk) 04:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely accept articles about such small villages in the UK or the US. Why should we treat villages in Malaysia any differently? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, we should create more Kampung article like Kampung Pisang, Kampung Melayu, Kampung Malaysia Raya? Only notable kampung can be kept like Kampung Pasir Putih. The UK and US “Village” you can go report it to delete if that article didn't have notability. We should more focus on the Kampar notvKampung in the Kampar Ok. Only a few peoples (maybe 0) will read that paragraph. angys (Talk Talk) 01:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will not nominate small UK and US villages for deletion because they pass WP:GEOLAND, as do small villages elsewhere in the world. Verifiability for this one is provided by sources such as this and this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the Five pillars of Wikipedia, this encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer, which lists all established populated places. That overall principle is elaborated at WP:GEOLAND. This article verifies the existence of the village, which serves as the address, in effect, of a "green" educational project located there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only because of the link that Cullen found. I was going to vote for deletion because all I could find online was Wikipedia mirrors or passing mentions that might not refer to this location. We should keep villages, but without evidence for its existence, how are we supposed to know that there really is a village by this name? Without this link, or something comparable, we wouldn't have any reason to know that it wasn't a hoax. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Aside from the passing address mentions in several news items relating to the Nomad Adventure site based there and about a traffic accident [73], there is a slightly more substantial travelogue text which I have added as a footnote. Enough to meet basic verification and the gazetteer function. AllyD (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I found this maybe not a Kampung but a small town. This can keep but I think it should be named Chulek.I cant find it in the Google Maps, maybe it should merge into Gopeng? angys (Talk Talk) 10:01, 27 December 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 Bitcoin#Ponzi scheme and pyramid scheme concerns. Consensus is that this is a POV fork and should not be kept as a separate article, but there's not consensus to delete it outright, as some think that content could be merged into Cryptocurrency#Criticisms. I'm therefore temporarily redirecting the article to the relevant main article section, leaving it to editors to figure out what, if anything, should be merged where to. Sandstein 10:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Ponzi scheme and pyramid scheme concerns[edit]

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

Looks like an original research without clear topic Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Exact copy of the same-titled section from the bitcoin article. Kerl126 (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POVFORK for Bitcoin. While bitcoin may indeed be a pyramid/ponzi scheme - this should be addressed in the Bitcoin article and not in separate article with two separate concerns voiced.Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename I propose this article be renamed as "Cryptocurrency ponzi and pyramid scheme concerns." This article has a broader focus than bitcoin, athough much of the discussion is targetted at bitcoin. See [74] and [75] with about 2 million google hits between them. While they are not all WP:RS, there certainly is enough to pass WP:GNG. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then in which case it should be merged into the Cryptocurrency article, because it's an issue, as you pointed out, with cryptocurrencies in general. Just because someething has attention from the media does not mean that it should be a separate issue, if it more properly belongs as a subsection of the article - for example, there are criticisms of Apple over their taxes and over their labour policies, but you don't see "Apple tax dodging concerns and "Apple harsh labour policies concerns" as articles (both of which should suffice to have articles according to your views on WP:GNG, as in [76], [77]). With cryptocurrencies relatively new to the market, it should be addressed on the main page, and as the list of criticisms grow large enough, we can then fork out all the criticisms to a separate article Criticism of cryptocurrency (currently redirects to Cryptocurrency), as they did with the criticisms of Apple. 130.126.255.11 (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the merit of that explanation and agree with the content to be merged into Criticism of cryptocurrency. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cryptocurrency#Criticisms per above. 130.126.255.11 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cryptocurrency#Criticisms (where Criticism of cryptocurrency redirects), given the scope defined by both Jtbobwaysf and 130.126.255.11 and also the reliable sources[78][79][80] that have discussed the subject. Lorstaking (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point was to restore the Criticism of cryptocurrency page, not the redirect and use this content to seed it. The issue we are facing is that there are critical editors that seek to add contnet and flame wars start as non-critical editors seek to delete that content. I think it would be best for WP:NPOV if there was a dedicated page that editors could explore these subjects, otherwise the crypto-enthusiasts will just simply delete this content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cryptocurrencies are still relatively new, and the criticism section on cryptocurrency could use a some expansion, as of right now it is just a list of bullet points, so I don't feel it is the right time for a new article. As for the issue with edit warring and flaming on the page, have you tried talking to the other side and/or involving moderators and administrators to try to resolve the issues yet? 130.126.255.11 (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are very long discussions that range on this subject, and at the end of the day it comes back to an WP:NPOV & WP:WEIGHT issue. The haters want the article to be all hate related and the lovers want a love-fest. There is a point in the middle, but it is increasingly a challenge to mediate. Imagine if the democrats and the republicans needed to share the same wikipedia page. I know editors are supposed to keep their feelings out of it, but in practice it is a major challenge. Here is an example of one of the ongoing debates Talk:Bitcoin#Bubble/Ponzi/Illegal, and you can see from how long it is, that there are parties on both sides with strong feelings. The bitcoin page in particular might be a new technology (say less than 10 years), but still the page size is very large, and it is often used as an excuse to move content off of it. My suggesting new pages was an attempt to mitigate some of that (even if some of the editors dont end up liking the content being moved). Bitcoin is the subject of a lot of news coverage, so it is very easy to create new content with WP:RS, and thus where should the content be put? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated above this article appears to be a POV attempt to pull material from the main article and hide it in this subarticle. The material could easily fit into a section in the main bitcoin article and there is not enough length to justify splitting it out. I do not agree with the proposal to merge this into the cryptocurrency article, as this text focuses on bitcoin specifically (hence, why it should be in the bitcoin article). Laurencedeclan (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Please see these additional sources, in addition to User:David Gerard's book, Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain:
- U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York (September 21, 2015) "Texas Man Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Operating Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme",Press Release.
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (June, 2013) "Ponzi schemes Using virtual Currencies", Investor Alert, SEC Pub. No. 153.
- Murphy, E.V.; Murphy, M.M., and Seitzinger, M.V. (October 13, 2015) "Bitcoin: Questions, Answers, and Analysis of Legal Issues", Congressional Research Service CRS Report R43339.
- The Viking Cop (October 28, 2017) "Assessment of Cryptocurrencies and Their Potential for Criminal Use", Divergent Options.
- Jacquez, T. (2016) "Cryptocurrency, the new money laundering problem for banking, law enforcement, and the legal system", Utica College dissertation.
- Klimasinska, K. (June 12, 2015) "Terrorists Eyeing Bitcoin, Social Media to Fund Jihad, U.S. Says" Bloomberg News.

EllenCT (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mention, though I should note that as a self-published book it probably doesn't yet pass the pretty high bar for use as a Wikipedia RS :-) However, it does have hundreds of footnotes, so should be useful as a pointer to sources for the blockchain/cryptocurrency articles. (Anyone who wants an ePub to pick over for Wikipedia purposes, email me and I'll send you one.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move - The article's content should be moved to a section of a new article called Criticism of cryptocurrency. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork. Neutral articles about cryptocurrencies (or any other controversial topics) emerge from collaborative work between the "lovers" and the "haters", to use Jtbobwaysf's terminology, following our policies and guidelines, and engaging in dispute resolution if necessary. Creating separate articles for the "lovers" and the "haters" would result in two sets of non-neutral articles rather than a single group of neutral articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cryptocurrency#Criticisms for the rather good reasons given above. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename as proposed above to "Cryptocurrency ponzi and pyramid scheme concerns." Broader spectra then just bitcoin as suggested by some above. Deletion or merge would remove useful information.BabbaQ (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV fork. Merge anything worthwhile beforehand. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - just a POV fork to be merged into the main bitcoin/cryptocurrency article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Bolder[edit]

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

The monster in Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an example of an article on a totally not notable actor that has survied here on Wikipedia far too long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Part of the article appears to be plagiarized from one of the sources. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 11:37, 27 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taurus do Brasil[edit]

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

No references Rathfelder (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Will remove all the promo disgusting puff text. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is now a tiny stub with all the unsourced boring promo removed. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just being a hypnotist alone is not enough for notability. Nothing to show why he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eline Powell[edit]

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

Not a notable individual per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. I want this restored as a redirect as redirects are cheap, but based on editor behavior a discussion is required for this case. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plays the main character in the series Siren (TV series) on Freeform that airs from March 2018 on. This males here notable, at least from that moment on. First trailers have already been released and a main actress on a series of public interest is relevant.--Robberey1705 (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat out of my comfort zone and I only comment because I invested 5 mins of copyedit into that article (heh), but having a lead role in notable movie and starring in a notable series appears to satisfy WP:NACTOR? Which would suggest keep. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: NACTOR says multiple significant roles. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's 2, hence accords w/ the letter of the law? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete If 2 roles was enough, it would say "at least 2", multiple means more than 2, except maybe if they are two top billed roles, so there is no pass of guidelines here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elmidae. One of the stars of a major cable network series and she had a significant guest role in Game of Thrones.--Oakshade (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The role in game of thrones is trivial, and her 2018 film is not yet out. Maybe she will be notable after it appears and her performance is reviewed. Trying to define "multiple" is an exercise in futility--it depends on the importance of the roles and the films. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Her role as Bianca in Game of Thrones wasn't trivial as the character was a major plot point in Arya's development as an assassin covering two episodes. Yes, in the approach to the release of the show in March there is likely going to be a great amount of coverage on this person. --Oakshade (talk) 06:29, 31 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mist Systems[edit]

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

not notable company. article created by initially undeclared paid editor. The references are pure PR and mere notices, which is what would be expected since they do not yet seem to have an significant market presences. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corporate spam on a nn private company just going about its business. Sources are WP:SPIP and do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails appropriate notability guidelines. Includes much trivia, such as:

"In July 2017, the company introduced a partner channel program to target service providers of cloud based wireless solutions.[12]"

Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom and K.e.coffman above. Corporate spam, fails WP:SPIP, fails GNG, references fail the criteria for establishing notabilty WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nexthink[edit]

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

No notable company, with refs that are PR or notices or both, as is usual with paid editing. Editor did not initially declare. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are just PR or not significant coverage, and so not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam on a nn private company just going about its business. Sources are WP:SPIP and do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above; Promo article that does not show notability. Kierzek (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, corporate spam, fails WP:SPIP. References fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmine Aker[edit]

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

not notable, trivial roles, created by paid editor who did not initially declare DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promo/vanity article having no RS created/maintained by a single (evidently paid) SPA. Agricola44 (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The dearth of RS is this article's doom. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 10:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails NMUSIC as well as GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG.L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 29 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Joehle[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Gets a few hundred Google hits including his own sites; almost all seem to be related to Living on Love. The article claims he's "big in Russia", which is a nice non-verifiable claim. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly written article, full of unverrified claims, such as his claims of record milk production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 28 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Applegeeks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Largely self-sourced article, and Google offers nothing more robust to in place of the original website. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is the only secondary reliable source I could find discussing the topic at length: [81]. It's very good, but stands quite alone. This article: [82] uses Applegeeks as a launching pad to discuss another topic. Other than that, I can't find any independent, reliable sources covering the topic in significant detail. (As an aside, the !votes on that first nomination, yeesh, Old Wikipedia was awful.) Cjhard (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There are too few sources on this topic. I added the IGN article linked by Cjhard to Johnny Wander, the second webcomic by Ananth Panagariya/Hirsch. It's technically possible to keep these two articles seperated, but it seems like a bad idea not to merge the two. The current article contains no independently and reliably sourced information and is almost entirely based on primary sources. ~Mable (chat) 08:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125676

[2] ttps://news.virginia.edu/content/rice-theory-explains-north-south-china-cultural-differences-study-shows

[3] CNN, Ben Westcott and Serenitie Wang. "Who is to blame for Chinese rooftopper's dramatic death?". CNN. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]