Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 February	5 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Kennedy[edit]

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

Does not satisfy athletic notability. YouTube is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a source. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and as simple as it gets considering it's all Facebook-esque, sufficient in it alone. SwisterTwister talk 01:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for athletes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS. TheMagikCow (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, the article reads more like a promotional blurb.TH1980 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I would add that many athletes will sooner or later be the best in their nation's age or weight group. FWIW, I am of Irish descent and eligible for citizenship in Eire. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coil: The Musical[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Not sure if would be notable even after released. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 23:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. If this musical actually gets finished and ptoduced, then it might be worth reconsidering. --Whpq (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 ICC World Cricket League Division Two[edit]

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

As per WP:CRYSTAL. This tournament is likely to happen in 2018, however as none of the feeder tounaments to decide the participating teams have yet to be played, it is too early for this tournament to have an article. The venue is, as yet, undecided as well. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't quite WP:CRYSTAL because it will definitely happen, more surely than the 2020 Summer Olympics (because there's a slight chance the world will end between 2018 and 2020). The ICC is good at following through with their plans. OK, it is brief and only Div 2, but this will be an international sporting event with teams representing nations, the information about the method of team qualification is sufficient for an article (qualification is ongoing as the 2012–18 ICC World Cricket League is a multi-year season), and cricket is kind of a big deal as the second most popular sport in the world (there are more cricket fans than Christians). Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jacknstock. I agree that not much is known at this stage, but the Div 3 element starts in a couple of months, with the results of that feeding into this. Rightly or wrongly, the Div 3 article existed for the best part of two years without the host nation info too. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Allen (Canadian artist)[edit]

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

Artist of questionable notability. Article was nominated by an IP without followup, but upon inspection I found nothing to satisfy WP:ARTIST and little if anything that comes close to meet WP:GNG--cited sources appear to be run-of-the-mill local reviews. Article creator and couple of contributors appear to be single-purpose accounts. --Finngall ^talk 22:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 22:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 22:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and thanks-- I was the IP who could not figure out how to finish the nomination. This artist is not in any collections, nor I could not find any signigicant sources on him or his work. Looks to be a lot of puffery. The biography section had a lot of unsourced personal information that made me think it's probably an autobiography. 104.163.150.250 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watch What Ya Shakin'[edit]

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

There are no WP articles for "Ashley Stones", her supposed third album Cherryade, or the other songs she supposedly recorded. Google searches do not show ay songs or albums by a "Ashley Stones". Although the producer is listed as Burns, this song or album are not listed among his production credits. Likewise it is not among the supposed songwriter Mark Taylor's credits. Bronwyn (singer), another article created by the article author, CqlebEllis, was deleted as "has yet to release anything". Ojorojo (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear A9 and information is entirely unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ethanbas^talk 23:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I mulled over tagging this as a speedy hoax (G3) but felt that it is not blatantly obvious, to the point of vandalism. However, I feel this article is indeed a hoax. A google search for the Ashley Stones returns nothing about what is described and Ashley Stones Watch What Ya Shakin' again returns nothing of interest. If there was a leak last may, as the article asserts, I feel that this would be online. If this isn't made up, which would surprise me, there is clearly no notability. TheMagikCow (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No suitable independent, reliable sources found for Ashley Stones. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:30, 7 February 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 keep. Looks like you must do a WP:BEFORE search first before nominating anything for deletion. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filthy Frank[edit]

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

Recreated without going through DRV. Delete, salt, and add to title blacklist. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep now meets WP:NMUSIC by having a verified chart hit, which is why I reversed my previous deletion per G4. It didn't go to DRV because instructions / policy say "ask the deleting admin first" and just that was done at User talk:Ritchie333#Regarding speedy deletion of Pink Guy. Guidelines are not dogma, use common sense. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now notable due to a Billboard entry, pretty much what User:Ritchie333 said. SilentDan (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & possibly add page protection. I see no notability issues with this article. Arkhaminsanity (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep I understand what Ritchie333 said for the god sake. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -Per above. I also kindly ask that the nominator to withdraw the nomination as the subject meets notability guidelines. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 20:24, 4 February 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. Mz7 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amelex[edit]

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

Very scant coverage fails to meet WP:CORP. The two sources available are a profile of the CEO, who has been editing this article (User:Koliver2), and a bog-standard "companies being honored at a local awards ceremony" piece. Note that when searching the name, there are other companies known as Amelex with no relation to this one. Raymie (t • c) 17:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom and above delete. Small business with no claim of notability. MB 01:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Nothing noteworthy. TheMagikCow (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and topic shows no evidence of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I did not want to vote this way, due to how old this company is and therefore notable in theory, I am in agreement that this article could be removed.TH1980 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Not notable WP:CORPDEPTH.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:01, 6 February 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. Mz7 (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew David[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a film editor and composer, whose only discernible claim of notability is that he's worked on films that exist. As always, a person in the film industry is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he has an IMDb profile -- he has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source, all articles need reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG. No references provided and a search (although difficult because of the common name) found zero hits about this person, let alone any significant coverage by independent reliable sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person. - TheMagnificentist 19:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grim Trigger[edit]

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article about a film which is only just now entering the production pipeline ("commenced principal photography on February 6, 2017" -- and that's not a typo, because one of the references here is a casting call dated December 2016). This is referenced exclusively to primary sources, except for a single glancing namecheck of its existence in a Playback article about its casting director -- and there's a conflict of interest here, as the article was created by a person with a direct professional relationship with the film's producer. As always, Wikipedia is not an advance publicity database on which a film gets to have a primary sourced article the moment it enters the production pipeline -- except very occasionally in the case of exceptionally high profile projects like Star Wars eps 8 and 9 where the media obsessively publish every scrap of advance information they can get their hands on, most films outside of that rarefied class of megaprojects don't get articles on here until they're actually released and garnering actual critical reviews to pass WP:NFILM. No prejudice against recreation if and when that happens, but today is not the time for an article about an indie film that is only just starting photography. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas note that I have corrected the verb tense from "commenced" to "commences."

Unfortunately, I have to once again correct Bearcat when he/she conflates by Wiki username "Davidjosephanselmo" with the person with the same name who is the CEO of a film studio in the city of Greater Sudbury, Ontario. Once again, this is incorrect as while my Wiki username is "Davidjosephanselmo" it is not my actual name LMFAO. Similar to how "Bearcat" is not a "bearcat" (whatever that may be) and his/her actual name is probably not "Bearcat." My username is an inside joke, and not my actual identity so there is NO conflict of interest. Furthermore, the feature Grim Trigger is NOT being produced in any way whatsoever with David Joseph Anselmo and/or his studio. Finally, I included in my sources an Ontario government link regarding its financial participation in Grim Trigger. Davidjosephanselmo (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already pointed out in the other discussion in which you raised this argument, it doesn't matter whether you are personally David Joseph Anselmo, or just a person who's using "David Joseph Anselmo" for a username as an "inside joke" — if you have any form of personal association with the article topics whatsoever, then you still have a direct conflict of interest. If you're in any position whereby using his name can qualify as an "inside joke", then you still can't start articles about anybody or anything he's associated with in any way whatsoever. And "an Ontario government link regarding its financial participation" does not assist notability — a film does not get an article on here until it's the subject of reliable source coverage in media. Press releases do not assist notability, casting calls do not assist notability, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund's spreadsheet of current funding projects does not assist notability, and on and so forth — it's media coverage, media coverage, media coverage and/or media coverage, and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Bearcat that, once again, the feature Grim Trigger is NOT being produced in any way whatsoever with David Joseph Anselmo and/or his studio. Think of it this way: I have no relation to the now deceased Steve Jobs. Even if I create the Wiki username "Stevejobs" I still have no relation to Steve Jobs OTHER than the fact that I have used his hame as my Wiki username. And I might do this as an inside joke between myself and someone(s) else who is not or related to Steve Jobs. Make sense? Once again, my Wiki username "Davidjosephanselmo" is an inside joke, but it is not an inside joke between myself and David Joseph Anselmo. I can't make this ANYMORE clear. Hopefully you can now stop kicking this dead horse :) The film was mentioned as going into production in Playback magazine, which is Canada's version of the US's Variety. How does this "not assist notability"? Davidjosephanselmo (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's review this again: you're using the username "Davidjosephanselmo" to create and edit articles about people who live and work in the same city as the real David Joseph Anselmo, and films being made by those same people. Whether you are DJA or are just somebody using DJA's name as an "inside joke", you clearly do have some form of direct personal association with Sudbury's film industry — these people and films wouldn't even be on your radar if you didn't — and so you still have a conflict of interest regardless of who you are or aren't. And, as I advised you on your talk page, if you're telling the truth that you're not DJA, then we have to block you for violating our rules against usernames that impersonate other people.

And again, this film was glancingly namechecked in a Playback article that is not about this film. That is not the kind of "coverage" that it takes to get a film into Wikipedia in and of itself. A film has to be the subject of reliable source coverage, not just namechecked in reliable source coverage about something or someone else, before it qualifies for a Wikipedia article. That's why that article doesn't assist this film's notability: it's not about this film. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat There is no relation between the feature Grim Trigger and the CEO of the film studio located in the same city that Grim Trigger is being produced. I just checked to see if this CEO was on IMDB, and he is under the name "David Anselmo" http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2156926/ . My Wiki username, "Davidjosephanselmo," which, again, I chose years ago, is not my actual name, nor am I trying to "impersonate" this CEO, who is not a celebrity or known in any significant way. I note that he does not have a Wiki page. I have never written anything on Wiki regarding this individual and/or his studio and/or his film & TV productions. Again, difficult to argue that I am impersonating someone with a project -- Grim Trigger -- that is in no way related to him. You claim to have made some "connection" with Grim Trigger because my Wiki username "Davidjosephanselmo" is very similar to this CEO "David Anselmo." Other than this connection, there is NO connection, and this CEO has no relation to Grim Trigger. I am not trying to make a connection between this CEO and Grim Trigger, you are. I am underlying that there is NO connection. Bearcat Davidjosephanselmo (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every article you've ever created on Wikipedia has been about either a person who works in Sudbury's film industry or a film made in Sudbury, and you expect me to believe that it's a pure coincidence that your username just randomly happens to also be the name of Sudbury's film industry kingpin? As an administrator I have the ability to check when an account was first registered, and your Wikipedia account was registered in 2013, at which time DJA was already the alpha dog of Sudbury's film industry — he's not some random guy who came along years after you were already using this username, but a guy who was already professionally associated with the very same other people you've been creating articles about. It's simply not credible that Sudbury film industry topics like Zahra Golafshani and Ernest Riffe and Andrew David and Mathieu Séguin and Grim Trigger were on your radar as potential article topics, and yet your username matching the name of the Sudbury film industry's kingpin is a pure "I've never heard of the guy" coincidence. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Bearcat, you are incorrect in that every article that I've ever created on Wiki "has been about either a person who works in Sudbury's film industry or a film made in Sudbury." If you consider "David Anselmo" (as he is listed on IMDB) to be the "alpha dog of Sudbury's film industry" then that is your prerogative. From what I know, he is best known as the Hallmark TV Movie-of-the Week producer, and his "studio" is actually an unconverted and dilapidated community skating arena. Regardless, you'll notice that non of those individuals that you have listed -- Zahra Golafshani, Ernest Riffe, Andrew David and Mathieu Séguin -- have anything to do with this same "David Anselmo," who, AGAIN, has nothing to do with Grim Trigger. You are proving my point that, once again, I am not this CEO, and this individual has, once again, nothing to do with Grim Trigger. Only in your mind Bearcat is there a connection between this CEO and Grim Trigger. Davidjosephanselmo (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you have created have been Darwin (2015 film), Your Name Here (2015 film), Grim Trigger, Ernest Riffe, Andrew David, Ivan Gekoff, Zahra Golafshani and Mathieu Séguin. Every single one of those articles is directly connected in some way to Sudbury — even Gekoff, the only article that doesn't have the word "Sudbury" in it, still contains the statement that he's a frequent collaborator of a director who does live and work in Sudbury. So no, I'm not incorrect about that — your article creations have pertained entirely to Sudbury's film industry.

And again, the way somebody's profile happens to be listed on IMDb does not prove anything. His "our CEO" profile on NOFS/Hideaway's website gives his name as David Joseph Anselmo, and virtually all of the media coverage about him that does exist gives his name as David Joseph Anselmo. So one profile eliding the "Joseph" does not constitute proof that this is all just a coincidence.

Sudbury has a small film industry, in which nobody associated with it can credibly claim to have no form of association with any of the others. Even if they've never actually worked together on a particular film project, they will still inevitably at least know each other in some capacity — the industry isn't large enough for them not to. Whether DJA is directly involved in the production of Grim Trigger or not, he still personally knows the people who are, and has directly worked with some or all of them on other projects, so it's still a COI because there's still a direct personal association involved. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite claims to the contrary by the OP, he has a COI in this article, and not hiding it well. Also under fits under WP:TOOSOON. JerrySa1 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreleased film which has not yet received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage just isn't out there and what's in the article isn't enough to show notability. The only independent source mentions the film very briefly, to where it would only be considered a WP:TRIVIAL source. It's at best WP:TOOSOON for this to have an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Best Award[edit]

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

Non notable newly instantiated business award. Can't see how it's notable. scope_creep (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising complete with the clear specifics, sources are clear announcements and PR quotes. SwisterTwister talk
Delete References appear to consist of mentions of people and firms winning this award, not to any discussion of the award itself. Article lacks discussion of the subject in independent reliable secondary sources, no evidence of notability provided or found. KDS4444 (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Ross Jallet[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a film producer, whose only discernible claim of notability is that he's worked on films that exist. The referencing here is a mix of primary sources and local media coverage in the city where he works, with no evidence shown that he's garnered any reliable source coverage beyond the purely local; there's also a conflict of interest here, as the article has been edited by a professional colleague of his. As always, film producers do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just because they have profiles on IMDb -- they must be sourceable as having achieved something that actually passes WP:CREATIVE. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Cerutti[edit]

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

Neither a politician nor notable. Fails WP:BIO. Three references, ones a dud, other one points to a knowledge website where he has created an article, which doesn't affirm his claim that he is an author. Other ref is WSJ reporting he made CEO of christies. Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - most CEOs of multinational corporations are notable, including this one. Besides the substantial coverage of his role at Christies -- including in The New York Times, Bloomberg, WSJ, etc -- he's been profiled and interviewed by Le Figaro, his book's been reviewed, and he has held prior positions at Sotheby’s, the Centre Georges Pompidou, and in French government ministries which will likely have coverage in reliable sources. See fr.wp for further sourcing. Meets WP:GNG. Υπογράφω (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Υπογράφω. Not sure what not being a politician has to do with anything. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Substantial accounts in business papers of his various appointments, including becoming CEO of Christies, ensures his notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thrill Valley[edit]

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

PROD removed by author without explanation. A Google search result indicate a non-notable theme park. Fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is not enough information on this park to make this article encyclopedic.—JlACEer (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It might help to know that Thrill Valley was only one section of a larger theme park called Odakyu Gotemba Family Land (ja:小田急御殿場ファミリーラン) which operated from 1974 to 1999. When the park closed, the roller coaster section, which was called Thrill Valley, continued operation for a few years until 2002, while the rest of park became an outlet shopping mall. This article [1] in Nikkei Style (published by The Nikkei) has a lot on the park--and is a significant RS--but I can't find much else online in Japanese. I am sure there is more in newspapers and magazines from the 70s and 80s, during the heyday of the park, but those are hard to access. Michitaro (talk) 01:10, 7 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Jacobson (CEO)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No indication of notability. scope_creep (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search on Google produces plenty of articles mentioning him. Being CEO of Xerox clearly indicates notability.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. CEO since June, and should be kept. Maybe needs a bit of work, but otherwise fine. JerrySa1 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy 'Keep as CEO of a major corporation. What a bizarre nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep CEO of global company. Sources are plentiful online. TheMagikCow (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where is the document in Wikipedia that states that CEO's are notable? Most of the sources in Google are trade papers and sites, Linkedin, Bloomberg and WSJ, who's jobs are to report the movements and the capital of people like this. Where is the creative act that is defined as being worthy of inclusion of such a person into Wikipedia and that is written into the core of WP:GNG. What has he done which makes him notable? All I see is a guy which makes more good decisions over bad ones, and is hence good at running a company. scope_creep (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:BASIC for the basic people related criteria. I think he fits them. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Most of his predecessors at Xerox are listed on Wikipedia, so seems appropriate to list him too... BobShw (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article should definitely be expanded, but notability of Xerox CEO cannot be in question. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is the CEO of a major international company and has been the subject of many articles in published secondary sources that are reliable, independent of each other, and independent of him. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How would it benefit the encyclopedia if this article was deleted? Lepricavark (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Take it the other way around. What is the public good, or the WP encyclopedic good of having this article in Wikipedia and who exactly will view the article. It certainly wouldn't be the man of the Clapham omnibus, the common man, the man on the street Why does he need to know? Certainly no impact on him. As far away from him/her as it's possible to get. So what about business employees. Mostly employee's don't need to know, nor would they want to know. What about businesses themselves? Well, most business are less than 10 people, across most parts of the world, and even in the west there is is 1 large or very large company to every 10-250 thousand companies. Why would they want to look at them. Well, some would do, but a very small percentage, minuscule really as percentage. Suppliers probably. But the numbers are tiny really. What about somebody that is cool, or stylish, or a trendsetter. Well possibly, but this guy is certainty not that. Well what about the company itself. Certainly xerox is famous for inventing the whole pc environment, the office, office LAN network, the window software system, events, the mouse, the whole lot, which both Microsoft and Apple and everybody else knocked off. But that is not the man. So you are left with a very small number of people who want to view his bio, for investment purpose generally, certainly not out of curiosity, because all these people are Type A personalities, they don't have friends, merely colleagues, or college buddies that were in the frat. So if somebody is looking at him from a business perspective, the very last place they would come and see his details is WP. Alternative, very much more detailed sources would be used. So who does that leave exactly, the people who say, cool dude, you have an article in Wikipedia, cool, you have conquered it. You have completely subverted it. Lastly for the last two commenters. This the CEO were are discussing, not xerox. Notability is not Inherited. scope_creep (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if something passes the notability criteria it is generally considered to be notable. I don't think anybody can say that article is useless because who would look at that? - that is being dictatorial. Wikipedia is founded on open, free knowledge, as long as the content is notable and verifiable. This article passes both of them. If you don't like this perhaps start a discussion at the village pump about changing this policy. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Riffe[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a film editor, whose only discernible claim of notability is that he's worked on films that exist. This is sourced almost entirely to references that verify the existence of the films, while failing to contain any mention of Riffe at all -- and the only reference that does have his name in it is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Further, there's a conflict of interest here, as the article was created by the CEO of the main film studio in the same city where Riffe works. As always, a person in the film industry is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he has an IMDb profile -- he has to be the subject of coverage in reliable sources, not just nominally verifiable as existing, to get an article on here. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Further, there's a conflict of interest here, as the article was created by the CEO of the main film studio in the same city where Riffe works." This is incorrect as while my Wiki username is "Davidjosephanselmo," which is also the name of the CEO of a film studio in the same city where Riffe works, it is not my actual name LMFAO. Similar to how you are probably not a "Bearcat" (whatever that may be) and your actual name is probably not "Bearcat." My username is an inside joke, and not my actual identity so there is NO conflict of interest. Davidjosephanselmo (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you're telling the truth that you're not personally David Joseph Anselmo, it doesn't make that much difference. Any form of direct personal association with the article topics is a conflict of interest on here — so if you're in any sort of position in which using his name as your username can qualify as an "inside joke", then you still have a COI. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Even if you're telling the truth that you're not personally David Joseph Anselmo, it doesn't make that much difference. Any form of direct personal association with the article topics is a conflict of interest on here — so if you're in any sort of position in which using his name as your username can qualify as an "inside joke", then you still have a COI."

Bearcat, please note that I have zero direct personal association with the article topics so, once again, there is NO conflict of interest here. And I repeat, David Joseph Anselmo has absolutely nothing to do with this feature film. You, Bearcat, are the person who keeps making this claim that cannot be verified. Davidjosephanselmo (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no personal association with David Joseph Anselmo, then how can using his name as your username be an "inside joke"? Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way: I have no relation to the now deceased Steve Jobs. Even if I create the Wiki username "Stevejobs" I still have no relation to Steve Jobs OTHER than the fact that I have used his hame as my Wiki username. And I might do this as an inside joke between myself and someone(s) else who is not or related to Steve Jobs. Make sense? Once again, my Wiki username "Davidjosephanselmo" is an inside joke, but it is not an inside joke between myself and David Joseph Anselmo. I can't make this ANYMORE clear. Hopefully you can now stop kicking this dead horse :) Davidjosephanselmo (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing you're missing in that comparison is that the username "Stevejobs" would still get you editblocked for impersonation, regardless of who your "inside joke" was or wasn't with. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- article fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Four of the five references do not mention this individual. And the fifth reference only lists his name among others. My search found no significant coverage by independent reliable sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a film editor is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reinier Krol[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:BLP of a self-published author and film director, can find no references about him aside from his own websites which have been listed as sources ABF99 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ABF99 (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Insufficient IRSS for notability. TOOSOON I think. Aoziwe (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable writer and filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. When I originally looked, I thought he was borderline but with this, delete. scope_creep (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zahra Golafshani[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a director who has only made short films to date. Her only claim of notability is having won awards from the "local filmmakers" programming stream of the film festival in the city where she works, and her only sourceability is to the local media -- and there's a conflict of interest here, as the article was created by the CEO of the same city's primary film studio. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she accomplishes something more than locally notable and becomes more than locally sourceable, but Cinéfest is not a major enough film festival for its best short film award to carry a person over WP:CREATIVE all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, she does not yet meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no significant coverage in published secondary sources that are reliable, independent of each other and independent of the subject. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Griffin (political consultant)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Described himself as Veteran corporate and political strategist. Major puff piece article that magically appeared fully formed, created by editor with SPA account User talk:Ejdooley. Not a politician. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising alone. SwisterTwister talk 01:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, this basically amounts to "résumé of a person who exists", rather than "encyclopedia article about a person whose existence warrants the attention of an encyclopedia". Being named as a Twitter account worth following, sourced only to a listicle that glancingly namechecks his existence without being about him, is not a claim of notability in and of itself — and neither is "appears as a political commentator on the news", sourced nowhere at all. And other than that, all we've got here is "owns a PR company" and "has clients", sourced almost entirely to references that glancingly namecheck his existence while not being about him. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional piece on non-notable person. AusLondonder (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. I can find no suitable independent, reliable sources apart from local media, and that coverage is of a trivial kind. I'm puzzled by one of the sources, used more than once, referring to "Tim Griffin" and not "Pat Griffin" in connection with the firm Purple Strategies. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CJ GLS[edit]

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

non notable logistics company, Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 14:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising and only existing as a business PR. SwisterTwister talk 01:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete leaving aside the fact that it is clearly advertising, more pertinent is that the topic shows no evidence of being notable and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technosoft Corporation[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable corporation. MER-C 13:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Topic shows no evidence of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising alone and the history shows clear signs of unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Hanif Sulthoni[edit]

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

Drummed up bio about an author of some self-published books. No indication of any notability, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. A search on "Muhammad Hanif Sulthoni" -wikipedia only show his book Gara-Gara Mesin Waktu and blogs. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nothing to reach Notability JarrahTree 15:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources already good enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.62.17.161 (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC) — 202.62.17.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hikashop[edit]

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

Unfererenced article about non-notable software. MER-C 12:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In its current state, the article probably qualifies for speedy deletion because it does not make any claim of notability. Looking for references, I find some news articles mentioning the company, but nothing that I think rises to the level of significant reliable independent coverage. Deli nk (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence anywhere of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (However, Deli nk, the article does not qualify for speedy deletion because it does not make any claim of significance, because that speedy deletion criterion applies only to articles about people, animals, organisations, web content, and events, not software.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Significance of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus on Antibiotic Resistance Profiles[edit]

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

Contested PROD (with no explanation) - Article is an essay (see WP:NOTESSAY) and contains referenced statements, mixed with WP:SYNTH based on the article creator's personal opinion. It appears that this article was created as part of a project (see Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_North_Carolina_Wilmington/History_and_Methods_of_Infectious_Diseases_Research_(Spring_2017)) and when it first appeared in Article space I moved it back to the editor's sandbox, feeling that it was not ready to be a Wikipedia entry. The creator moved it back to article space over the redirect, which is why it appears that I have created this article - I'm definitely not the author. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTESSAY; duplicates the subjects Staphylococcus aureus#Treatment, Staphylococcus aureus#Antibiotic resistance, and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; last two sections are based on primary sources, so not WP:MEDRS and thus unlikely to be mergable. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In its current form, this is a scientific paper/essay hybrid, on a too-specific topic, duplicating existing content. My suggestion to the author would be to integrate the new material (what of it is suitable) into the existing article sections pointed out by HyperGaruda above.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spout (App)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable app; a search for coverage in reliable sources resulted mainly in false positives, passing mentions, or unreliable sites such as blogs and web forums. I couldn't find any significant reliable coverage about the app itself. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator beat me to the punch here - the article attempted to inherit notability from similar apps, leading me to remove a number of references that don't even mention the subject of this article. The remaining sources do not in any way indicate that this app meets the General Notability Guidelines. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:11, 4 February 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Adam9007 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tash Sultana[edit]

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

Non notable band that fails WP:BAND. No mention on Discogs, Spotify, Napster. Only 18 members on sound cloud. Previously nominated for WP:AFD nomination several days ago, but no one noticed it with no votes. Completely non notable. scope_creep (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a young Australian artist who is a self taught musician. She has overcome addiction and psychosis. She is growing an audience particularly through YouTube - videos range from a small audience of 3800 on up to over 1 million. She is starting to tour. So yes, she is new and the impact is small but it is growing. Removal seems inappropriate 184.70.125.198 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC) Also worth checking her website tashsultana.com which shows the sort of detail that merits keeping this entry.[reply]

Keep. Snow. Terrible nomination. Top ten. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Undeniably notable, particularly in the last couple of weeks with Hottest 100 and a top ten album in Australia as of today.Boneymau (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. coverage in SBS, ABC & SMH, and charting releases. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - charting album, satisfies WP:NMUSIC. Dan arndt (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close I don't think they were there three weeks ago when I first looked at them, but fair enough. scope_creep (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by RHaworth (A10 of BansheePHP). (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banshee content management framework[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. No reliable independent references. Fails WP:GNG. One of very many content management systems, few of which have achieved notability Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:25, 4 February 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 Antipolo. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King's Little Jewels Learning Center[edit]

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

K-6 school, no meaningful external reliable source coverage (currently-cited sources are simply lists of schools.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - highly promotional. I removed some clear ownership content but there is nothing here that even alludes to notability. Purely advertising Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as above. Not notable. Ethanbas^talk 23:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Antipolo per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, as I see no reason why this article is a particular exception. If there's an article about a more local authority or government agency than the Department of Education in the Philippines, I would support that. Appable (talk | contributions) 10:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete non notable encyclopedia material.I have an alternate account, User:BethOne .(Cfgvhbj (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)) false vote by an impersonating editor struck out Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antipolo, as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Murphy, Ph.D.[edit]

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

This researcher does not appear to fulfill the notability requirements for academics, with an h index of 12, a cite max of 101 and that (by some distance) highest-cited article co-authored as an undergrad, and no indications of recognized great influence in the field. - Much as I dislike judging academics by these metrics (my h-index makes me as notable as a dead fish) and despite my personal interest in this research topic, this is what the criteria on WP go by. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it is presumptuous, and not in keeping with normal Wiki style, to have Ph.D after the subject's name in the heading. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.158.209 (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF — citations too low to convince me of a pass of #C1 and what else is there? The title indeed violates MOS:CREDENTIAL but that can be fixed if the article is kept. (Re the nomination statement, though: some dead fish are pretty notable.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my opinion on this https://sociobiology.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/is-wikipedia-anti-intellectual-compare-athletes-to-academics-and-the-answer-is-yes/ Agelaia (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not yet pass WP:Prof. WP:Too soon. How interesting that people styled "PhD", "Dr", or "Professor" are so often deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, {{U|Xxanthippe]], and past outcomes. We almost never keep assistant professors, who are not generally tenured. We are not a resume website. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON as mentioned above. No indication of notability in terms of professors yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Rolfe (programmer)[edit]

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

Not the subject of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) No in-depth hits in a video game reliable sources custom, books, or regular Google searches, and no suitable redirect targets (isn't known as an employee or designer of a single company/game). czar 07:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 07:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 07:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He seems to have a following on blogs, forums, and fan sites. However, these are not reliable sources. There are some promising hits on Google Books, but they're hidden behind Google's snippet view. For example: this book published by Sybex. It clearly mentions Rolfe in a chapter about the Intellivision, but this is the only hit listed by Google for "Rolfe" in the book. From what one can tell by the limited preview, this seems like a trivial mention. If someone can locate coverage that more readily demonstrates significant coverage, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think we should be discounting a citation in a book just because it's not available in a google search! I happen to have that book on my shelf, and it credits Rolfe with writing "the software, including the Exec OS and Major League Baseball." Each of those items by itself is fairly significant. Trivial searches also reveal other (significant) games he developed that aren't cited in the Wikipedia article. In short, I don't think the problem is that he's not notable, I think the problem is that the article isn't adequately fleshed out. I can volunteer to improve it. Nandesuka (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen your source, but that would be two passing mentions. Where is the content for us to write an article about him? Now would be the time to show your sources. czar 02:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldi version history[edit]

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

This article is original research. There are no independent secondary sources that I have found to assert that this is a notable topic. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this kind of detail clearly belongs on the Vivaldi web site (to which it is totally self-sourced). W Nowicki (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TheMagikCow, what do you mean - "original research"? All versions linked to the original blogposts from Vivaldi Team, it's the most reliable source, I'm sure. If you mean some independent sources - OK, I can replace all links to the announcements in the other sources, but why it will be more reliable - I don't understand.

W Nowicki, this kind of details for other software is presented as well in Wikipedia (you can check on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_version_histories any software, for example, Yahoo! Messenger version history ). What's the difference between Vivaldi version history page and Yahoo! messenger version history page? Shpankov (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my opinion those are not appropriate either, since almost all are either sourced to personal memory (original research as it is called here) or company web sites. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. They also get out of date quickly, unless there is a dedicated "fan base", and Wikipedia is not a fan site. Perhaps for very major, historically significant software (e.g. Microsoft Windows, IOS, etc.), a history of major versions might be appropriate when the main article gets too long. Especially if someone besides the developing company notices enough to publish something that release. Otherwise it is best to keep one article on both the software and its history, which would be easier to defend against notability arguments. Just my opinion of course, which is what this page has, personal opinions, albeit based on the guidelines. W Nowicki (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shpankov The original research is referring to the fact I can find no sources that are about the history of Vivaldi. As per the WP:GNG, the article needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If it does not have this, it does not pass the GNG, and is deemed not notable. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can add this Version history into the main article about Vivaldi. And make this list expandable. Is it OK? Shpankov (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that that is appropriate in this case. This AfD is to determine whether the subject of Vivaldi version history merits an article. I, as the nominator, have pointed that it may not meet the notability guidelines. The whole article may be deleted and the content merged into the main article - that is what is meant when we say merge. If you can give some sources that you feel show that this article is notable - I am always happy to withdraw or change my !vote. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is entirely sourced to SPS; as such, it does not demonstrate notability, raises concerns over promotional content, and, because there are no sources actually providing an overview of the subject, is borderline original research: the sources are only for each version, not for the history as a whole. Vanamonde (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a manual, much less a version history.--Rpclod (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ (see below) to Vivaldi (web browser): this information is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia, but obviously does not pass WP:GNG. If it is deleted it will almost certainly be rewritten from scratch in said article anyhow. Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the page was merged with the main article. This article can be deleted. Shpankov (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete: Yes, you read that right – the article has now been merged by the author of all but one significant contribution, and that contribution has been attributed in the edit history of the other article. A redirect with this title would have very little to no value. Mdrnpndr (talk) 17:54, 10 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Smoke[edit]

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

Small -- hell, tiny -- Toronto retailer. It's claims to fame are as "the first brand in Canada to partner with a medical-marijuana producer to offer legally branded Cannabis" and "the first Canadian cannabis consumer brand to raise capital" -- neither of which milestones has attracted any real attention. Calton | Talk 18:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gnews does reveal some good results, including this story from Canada's biggest national newspaper, this from the US-based Sprudge, this from BlogTO, to choose three of the strongest. These are in addition to the cites on the article, and indeed most but not all of those could be dismissed as routine or affiliated coverage. But taken all together, I think the coverage meets WP:ORG as well as WP:AUD. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep -- The Globe & Mail; plus the brand is apparently being discussed as a firm representative of the "green bubble": Calgary Sun: "Wilson is among several market backers who recently invested $3 million in Vancouver-based Tokyo Smoke, which wants to become the Starbucks of cannabis." So could be a touch of WP:TOOSOON, but likely that the notability would continue and increase in the future with various legalisation initiatives going on. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as essentially an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough in the references to convince me that this retailer is of at least marginal notability. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 07:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep – originator needs to add in the additional news sources we've found, and it needs to be given a going-over to remove any promotional material, but fundamentally the topic seems (marginally) notable per guidelines. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 04:29, 5 February 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. Secondary schools are generally assumed notable; however, we have to consider other issues - as pointed out by the Delete voters, this article is almost completely promotional, and only sourced to the school's own sources and so there is no verifiability. TNT applies - there is an article to be written here, just not this one. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delta English School[edit]

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

No evidence of third-party notability. Google search finds the usual vanity coverage, but no third-party coverage. Note that author stated, in removing the PROD, that they were initiating an extensive PR effort to find sources. Wikipedia isn't driven by PR. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage by independent RSes. Nothing found in search or in the article suggests this school is exceptionally notable. Gab4gab (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I, Wanda Raskin, am the MarCom Administrator for Delta English School. I have only made edits to Delta English School's article on Wikipedia because I am employed by this institution. Based upon request by Delta English School's parent community, I decided to create a Wikipedia article for the institution as none exist at the moment. I noticed that the article has been orphaned and tagged for deletion. I would really appreciate the steps I can undertake to revert this decision as a lot of time and effort has gone thus far into creating this article.Wandaraskin (talk) 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment The promotional/paid editing is a concern and shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia. However, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES would suggest we should keep as the school provides senior high school education. AusLondonder (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This school is K-grade 10,not to grade 12. It's not a senior high school. Gab4gab (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't have to be. The school-leaving age in many countries is 16 and we have always kept such schools. They still qualify as secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I find articles on UAE high schools that are K-12. It remains to be seen what we always do. Gab4gab (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added categories and some references to Delta English School's article (similar to what other Sharjah schools have done on their Wikipedia articles). I have read and is completely familiar with Wikipedia article posting guidelines. We do not intend to market Delta English School through its Wikipedia article but rather inform the UAE community who desire to learn more about the school. Content will be closely screened for biased/promotional information and edited to reflect a neutral opinion. More references will be added to support Wikipedia:Notability. Wandaraskin (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We generally keep high school articles and I see no reason to be different here. If there is local news coverage, that would support the references. The article at the moment reads like a school prospectus more than an encyclopaedia article though. Boleyn (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferably fast per G11 and WP:TNT. This is clearly intended as a promotional piece. OUTCOMES does not suggest that we have keep blatant advertising, and it would be an affront to the good will and commitment of our volunteers to rewrite it for the school however strong our dedication to the Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will comment briefly on the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay. It is peculiar in that it doesn't actually state that high schools are notable and elementary schools are not notable, but only that past deletion discussions have usually found that. If we want to make it binding, we could raise it to the standing of a notability guideline, in the same way that naval admirals are notable and naval commanders are not notable unless they have received their nation's highest award for valor. I suggest that, if the author doesn't want to have all of their effort thrown away by deletion, they request that the article be moved to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no reason to suppose this school doesn't meet WP:GNG with sufficient research. Develop not delete is how to build an encyclopedia. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious advertisement, and the entire nature of the article is so thoroughly an advertisement that it should be deleted. Development of an encyclopedia needs to be done by volunteers writing articles, supplemented to some extent by those declared paid editors who can write proper articles. This development is harmed, not helped, if the c volunteers spend their time reworking the paid work of other people. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is irrelevant, as are any notability standards in the case of an article like this. WP:NOT is basic policy, and over-rides all notability guidelines--the relevant part here being NOT PROMOTION. (FWIW, it isn't the case y that usually high schools are considered notable----rather, that for the last 7 years., essentially no article on a high school with real existence has been deleted at AfD except for other reasons than notability--that's more consistent than most of our written guidelines.) DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. Yes, schools of a certain category are presumed notable: but per DGG, this is overridden by NOT PROMOTION. Had this been nominated for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11, I would have disposed of it myself without hesitation. Vanamonde (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - Educational related, transwiki to Wikiversity. Michael Ten (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although the article is well-written, no independent, authoritative references are given. So nothing demonstrates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Delta English School, as stated before, is STRICTLY NOT intended to be promotional in nature. Content is written with neutrality and explains Delta English School in its entirety. I do not see the 'promotional and prospectus' angles which are lucidly floated by some Wikipedia editors - all processes and services described in this article ARE TRUE AND CURRENTLY EXIST ON-CAMPUS. If a process/service exist and is written neutrally, it completely aligns with Wikipedia's writing tone and style. Why should this article be penalized (or deleted) for accurately listing all processes and services which the institution faithfully renders to help improve the life of students in the United Arab Emirates? There are countless Wikipedia articles on UAE-based K-12 institutions with most of them lacking credible sources and containing clear advertisement-style content. Since those institution articles are not under consideration for deletion, why is Wikipedia treating this article harshly and differently? The article is open to editing by the community and describes information that is requested by the general UAE population. To comply with Wikipedia guidelines, we will NEVER attempt to reference paid press releases to enforce article notability (as was previously misunderstood by Robert McClenon), but the article will require some time to have independent references created and published for citation. The article undergoes constant editing for clarity and non-bias and hence should be retained.Wandaraskin (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Ibis Alger Aeroport[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. All the article confirms is it exists. Ibis are 3 star hotels and generally only 5 star hotels with significant coverage are kept LibStar (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find anything to indicate anything but a WP:MILL hotel. MB 01:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madalina Bellariu Ion[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for actors or general notability guideline. Only one minor role in a notable unreleased TV show; all coverage of this actress appears trivial at best. Appable (talk | contributions) 06:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has main role on Undercover Hooligan and I guess this film is notable film. And she is main cast of four film which is filming according to IMDB. --Aabdullayev851 (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I looked through all the links in Romanian and they basically give the same story over and over, namely that she plays a temptress to Jude Law's Pope; more of a human interest angle. So the coverage is rather limited in scope.
As to the "keep" voter's argument, I disagree: there's no real indication Undercover Hooligan is notable - no reviews seem to exist, its director is unknown, it appears to have made no impact. And even if the film were marginally notable, WP:NACTOR mentions "significant roles in multiple notable films" as the standard for notability.
In closing, I think Mădălina (that, by the way, is how one actually spells her name) is a rising talent, but this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Once she's notable, which she'll probably be in a couple of years, we can reassess. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Her "most notable television appearance" is two episodes in a minor role. WP:TOOSOON at best.--Rpclod (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:00, 5 February 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 pointed out, it would require a complete rewrite to not be promotional, so G11 applies SmartSE (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Scott (impresario)[edit]

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

Highly promotional article with major contributions from now blocked paid editing ring. I'm not sure whether or not there is any underlying notability, so I made a try at revising the article. I found it impossible, because almost all the references are mere mentions, unacceptable unreliable sources, or both. This would need to be started over from scratch, and when an article is in that state, es we delete, especially when paid editing is involved. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 5 February 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 keep. WP:SNOW Bad faith nomination by confirmed sock of site-banned user. Favonian (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Sadorra[edit]

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

Lack of notability and Very small 2 lines article Vushakiran (talk) 05:07, 4 February 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 February 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not in any way official wikipedia policy, but the consensus at WikiProject Chess is that any chess player who achieves the title of Grandmaster is notable. Also, the current state of the article is irrelevant. Discussion should focus on notability. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note I have re-opened this discussion after it was improperly closed via NAC. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orestis Matsoukas[edit]

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

Not notable except for one YouTube interview. Other than that, this is a promotional article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete poorly sourced. Even if it was claims for notability are weak. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khemisset salt mine[edit]

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

questionable notability, originally proposed for deletion, but I thought salt mines in general might be notable Prisencolin (talk) 02:13, 4 February 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 February 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and entirely unsourced. Wikipedia policy requires verifiable and reliable sources. Why is this constantly violated? Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 5 February 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 procedural close. Wrong venue; now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:1G (TV series). (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:1G (TV series)[edit]

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

This article have been created long time ago and has not been broadcasted yet. Kazaro (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm afraid its not a Afd nomination on my article just moved miscellany draft. Oripaypaykim (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bunsters[edit]

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

Small local food company -- so small, it needed to run a $65,000 crowd-funding campaign. The strongest source here is the Daily Mail. Calton | Talk 02:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising alone which is always unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Topic is not notable. Refernces are not independent third party as they mostly include facts and data from company sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Crowd funding does not make a subject not notable, it might actually make it more notable. The topic itself is not inherently not notable. Not sure that it is clear advertising or promotional. The style is not self congratulatory and the tone is pretty neutral, certainly better than many other articles we consider. I think there is enough for this one to scrape over the line. The real question possibly should be should the target of the article be the company or their Shit the Bed sauce. The article could be strengthened a bit with more about their lead sauce, for which there are some more references? Their sauce is possible technically more notable than the company. I might be convinced otherwise on the basis of TOOSOON perhaps. Aoziwe (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete blatant advertising from a single purpose editor who created the article. LibStar (talk) 11:35, 11 February 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 Minute to Win It (Philippine game show). Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minute to Win It: Last Man Standing[edit]

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

The information was originally included in the Minute to Win It (Philippine game show) article. However, I decided to trim down the article due to the reasons of:

Too much tables, it makes the article cluttered;
The information I have deleted was too trivial. Such that every time a local celebrity played in that game show, that person was then added;
All information were unreferenced; and
Lastly, it does not deserve its own article. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 05:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Minute to Win It (Philippine game show) as a possible search term. Redundant to the main article, for the most part. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Narutolovehinata5; celebrity gimmick spinoff from main show, and a huge case of Filipino TV cruft with show results which is highly inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Nate • (chatter) 06:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a collection of non-encyclopedic charts. No references at all, let alone anything that shows notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:04, 4 February 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 The Dead Rabbitts. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of Reality (EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. Should probably be a redirect, but the redirect continues to be reverted. Does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If decision is to redirect, we could prevent new or unregistered editors from modifying the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a couple of reviews from fringe sites are not enough to demonstrate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Chadwick[edit]

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

Appears to lack substantial coverage in reliable sources. I did find this [2] Siuenti (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've used that ref and added three more: mostly they deal with his later career as a gossip news reporter / tour guide for TMZ. He was a top 12 finalist on Australian Idol. Article now demonstrates his notability by substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to be sufficient IRSS to support notability. If anything still TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When the subject is not even mentioned in the opening paragraphs of the article on "failed Australian Idol contestants", you have to realize that notability will be a difficult hurdle. The hurdle is not passed.--Rpclod (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

School Students Against War[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:GNG. Only source is the official website (which looks very poor) and there very little coverage in independent sources. The previous nomination closed as no consensus. According to the talk page, the organisation apparently dissolved in 2009. Laurdecl ^talk 01:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Completely not notable and unsourced. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This group seems to have very little coverage in any independent sources. I did find this brief mention. The one reference in the article (in-line external link I converted) doesn't actually mention this group. Clearly doesn't satisfy WP:ORG. Gab4gab (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe this is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Ethanbas^talk 23:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - Transwiki to Wikiversity. Michael Ten (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about Wikiversity's notability policy, but I doubt they want this either. 121.216.50.239 (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Henchman[edit]

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

No coverage to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sources are affiliated, database-driven references, or bare credits. Largoplazo (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Not notable. Not cited. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ethanbas^talk 23:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Chand Patel[edit]

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

Unsourced hagiography fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Mduvekot (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment Nominator tried to add the above text to the original AfD page from 2006. I have copied the above text from the other page, and fixed the transclusion to the daily log. @Mduvekot: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 01:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject may or may not be notable, but, if the subject is notable, the article needs to be blown up and started over. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As for my own view, the subject this should have been tagged for WP:PRODBLP instead as an unsourced biography of a living person. Would gladly reconsider notability if sources are provided, but the fawning definitely needs to be toned down. --Finngall ^talk 01:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to indicate notability, and tone is more like a paid "Who's Who" entry than an encyclopedia article.PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 02:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 02:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please accept my apology for not adding reference to my claim article. I have gathered this information by reading local new papers way back in 2006 and this information was published in local language i.e. Urdu and I have translated into English and added to wikipedia. I have came across one of the online local paper which they published one of the articles and it was referenced here ^[1]

I support wiki hierarchy and gathering information mechanism. If someone educate me, how do I need to refer the article which was publish through local news paper published in Urdu language way back in 2006 and during that time period they were not online. Wikiunbiased (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I request PohranicniStraze not to refer me as a paid nominator directly or indirectly. Yes, I agree I haven't contributed much information to the web space wikipedia but learning to do it better. This article is learning experience and make sure I perform better during course of time. ThankWikiunbiased (talk) 04:01, 9 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Bruce Yeh[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. Has been tagged since 2009. Although a member of the Chicago Symphony, there is little independent coverage. MB 04:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The first search result, http://interlochenpublicradio.org/post/live-studio-john-bruce-yeh#stream/0 at the Interlochen Center for the Arts mentions he founded the New York New Music Ensemble, won a Grammy, and released more than a dozen recordings. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a press-release to advertise a performance. It is not independent nor reliable. The source does not say he "founded" the NYNEM, but was a "founding member" of the NYNEM. If this is true, it is not mentioned at the New York New Music Ensemble, which itself is unreferenced and probably not notable anyway. I don't believe he won a Grammy because there is no other coverage of this and he is not listed in the Grammy database [3]. Volume of recordings alone not significant per WP:NMUSIC. MB 14:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MB, the New York New Music Ensemble is a very well-known ensemble with multiple reviews in the New York Times [4], and have commissioned and premiered many new works. The fact that its WP article is lousy is immaterial. And yes, the ensemble which he founded and is the Director of did win a Grammy. See the reference below provided and my comments. Voceditenore (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assistant principal clarinet wih the Chicago Symphony, satisfies WP:BIO and WP:N with multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources such as Chicago Tribune Edison (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Chicago Tribune article does not appear at all to be significant coverage of Yeh. Where he is mentioned, it is mostly quotes of him talking about others. The story is not about Yeh at all, although it does provide a few facts about him. MB 02:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reference is a press release. There is no showing of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He was the director of Chicago Pro Musica, which did win the 1985 Grammy for Best New Classical Artist,[5] for what that's worth. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many reviews singling out his performances in the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc. [6]. Most are behind a paywall at HighBeam. However, I have a subscription and amongst others also found a lengthy 1993 feature article devoted to him in the Chicago Sun-Times [7]. Add to this his recordings as a soloist on Cedille Records, Newport Classic, Koch International Classics, etc., being the Director of an ensemble (Chicago Pro Musica) that won a Grammy, and principal clarinetist of a major symphony orchestra, he passes several criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have now expanded and referenced this article to multiple sources, including reviews of his recordings. MB and Rpclod, did either of you observe WP:BEFORE before opining "delete" simply on the basis of what was in the article. There are multiple links at the top of this AfD, and it's quite clear that they were not consulted in any kind of depth. Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE applies by its very terms to nomination, not !vote. However, I still do not find adequate support for notability and do not appreciate condescending responses.--Rpclod (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There may be a rationale for a redirect to Startup Village here; if so, that is an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sijo Kuruvilla George[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Not notable. Most of the article talks about an organization this person was supposedly associated with for some time in the past. Most links are are also about the organization, which may or may not be notable. There is nothing about this person which makes him notable, except this association with this organization. Aurorion (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improved, I vote to keep it

Agreed that the Wikipedia page of Sijo Kuruvilla George doesn't do justice to his work especially in the entrepreneurship space in the state of Kerala. He is one of the pioneers who kick started and later spearheaded an entrepreneurship movement in the very conservative state where technology startups were a foreign term. The organisation in reference is Startup Village which is also India's First Public-Private-Partnership Technology Business Incubator, which is now moving to the 2nd phase of their operations as SV.CO.

It is understandable that most of his recent work has not been covered as he has moved to working with educators and government bodies. He recently worked with Kerala Startup Mission to design the KSUM Fellowship Programme and now is working with KITCO to design the school education programs. He was also invited to write a column for Mathrubhumi.

Aby James (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC +05:30)

Notes:

1. One of his interview in Manorama News
2. One of his interview in Media One.
3. His Mathrubhumi Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
4. Search of Startup Village on Google
5. Startup Village on Economic Times
6. Search of Startup Village on YouTube
7. Search of Sijo Kuruvilla George on YouTube
8. Coverage of Sijo Kuruvilla George on The Hindu: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Article Improved, I vote to keep it

I have edited the page to reflect Startup Village's importance, and Sijo's contributions outside Startup Village especially the role as a entrepreneurship columnist as mentioned by Aby James.

Aurorion please review the changes and if satisfactory, please remove the delete request.

DhananSekhar (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced - while the edits have made the page better, they haven't established notability in my opinion. Most of the links provided are primarily about Startup Village, the organization that he was associated with in the past. While these links may establish the notability of this organization, they don't necessarily imply that this person is notable. Being a columnist on a regional language newspaper doesn't make him notable either (every newspaper has dozens of columnists). This article looks like a CV, and that too without any major achievements except for a brief past association with an incubator. Would like to hear from other experienced WP editors. Aurorion (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails notability as most of the references where only mentioning about the organization he worked with. There's no mentions about him or his contribution. 137.97.219.249 (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Wikipedia editors: The page has been improved in accordance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Main points to consider when making the decision.

1. Founding CEO of India's first Public Private Partnership model business incubator.
2. Establishment of India's first Student Entrepreneurship Policy.
3. Sijo Kuruvilla George's and Startup Village's impact on entrepreneurship in the State of Kerala.

Aby James 3 February 2017 (+05:30 UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out a few !votes that looked WP:DUCKy. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation closed

The sockpuppet investigation raised by KATMAKROFAN has been closed. Requesting to revoke the striking out of our votes. Aby James (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:CANVASSING, WP:MEAT, and Template:Rally. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Of the first 10 references, five don't mention the subject at all, three are dead links, only one discusses the subject, one contains a peripheral quote. The author seems to be trying to list as many links as possible and hoping that quantity overcomes quality.--Rpclod (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case

It seems my contributions to improve the page is perceived as sockpuppeting, canvassing, and meatpuppetry. All new terms which took good reading to understand the concepts and will take more processes and time to clear.

As one of the people who closely observes the Indian startup ecosystem, I believe Sijo Kuruvilla George's contributions in setting up and founding Startup Village and the subsequent impact it had on the Kerala Startup Ecosystem deserves a Wikipedia page.

The intention is not quantity over quality either. When references and citations were required, those were provided. And all the links provided are to credible sources as outlined in Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The dead links can be retrieved from the Internet Archive. For example, for the 2nd reference retrieved from the Internet Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20131029204533/http://www.deccanchronicle.com/131009/lifestyle-offbeat/article/cool-calm-and-oh-so-young. But I feel any attempts to make any more edits will end up being misconstrued. Aby James (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have undone the striking of two editors' comments by User:KATMAKROFAN as being unwarranted. The SPI did not establish any connection, and the other reasons suggested do not justify such refactoring. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While the recent edits to the subject article made by Aby James and DhananSekhar are welcome, irrespective of the outcome of the deletion proposal, request them to disclose any personal connections with the subject person in the interest of WP:COI. Since both users have already published their linkedin profiles and websites on the SPI page, hope this is not an unreasonable request. Specifically requesting this because the subject person's linkedin profile appears among "suggested pages" on both profiles, which indicates strong possibility of a non-insignificant connection as per Linkedin algorithms. Aurorion (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My profession involves researching startups and being involved in the Indian startup ecosystem that includes founders, incubators, accelerators, investors, educational institutions, government bodies etc. I have met Sijo Kuruvilla George and his team as part of my study on the state of student entrepreneurship in Kerala and while he was a visiting consultant for LetsVenture working on policy changes in angel investments in India. I also reach out to him to solicit opinions on startup policies as I do with all my sources. Aby James (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first two sources are articles from major Indian newspapers mentioning Sijo Kuruvilla George. This is a strong indication that the subject fulfils WP:GNG. Inwind (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to Aurorion's request I would like to disclose that I know Sijo in person and My startup was once incubated in Startup Village. But my startup has no ties with Startup Village at this point of time and I do not have any business or family ties with Sijo. Only reason I'm here is because I have seen first hand how much Sijo has contributed to the growth of startup ecosystem in Kerala. If Sijo was in Silicon Valley, there would be no question about his notability, it's just that in our corner of the world, the ecosystem is not mature enough. Regardless of what the decision is on this article is today, I'm confident that Sijo's page will be in Wikipedia a decade down the line, by which time, I expect our startup ecosystem to mature and Sijo's contributions to become too obvious to ignore. I would take my leave from this discussion by reiterating my stance that this page deserves to stay here. DhananSekhar (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you, Aby James & DhananSekhar for clarifying on your connection with the subject person.

Inwind: I don't think being merely mentioned in major newspapers is a sufficient criterion to establish notability - as mentioned by Rpclod, most of the links are about startups or Startup Village, and only mention the subject person trivially. Startup Village may be notable, but that doesn't mean that this person is.

At the risk of whataboutery, other articles which I have been involved with have been deleted as a result of similar arguments. For example: Krishnan Ganesh, which in my opinion had far better references^[2] (in terms of both quantity and quality) for notability than this subject^[3] here. Aurorion (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment: Aurorion, wish to clarify a couple of points.
- Sijo Kuruvilla George is the co-founder (Founding CEO) of Startup Village and it was under his leadership that the organisation grew and made the impact in Kerala.
- The references are to Sijo Kuruvilla George and Startup Village not to startups.
- From the trivial coverage section you linked to: On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention. (...) Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability. Aby James (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising and the information listed above confirm it, overall the history shows there's no convincing signs of satisfying our policies and what they would need from it. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SwisterTwister, the discussions in this page has been based on clarification, substantiating and based on Wikipedia's guidelines. Requesting to clarify and substantiate your statement. Aby James (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to Startup Village - a news search brings back many hits to confirm existence, but as the company / organisation article is small, I would prefer to merge things there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, all sources in the link are clear advertising including clear paid press and republished company words. See:

1 is a clearly labeled press release including a full company interview, and in a known paid press
2 is exactly same
3 is same
4 is same
5 is same
6-11 all finally show same, including the consistency in both paid press publications and words. SwisterTwister talk 01:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not a journalist, so I am not qualified enough to verify the authenticity of press. But, paid press on The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle, Malayala Manorama, Reuters, The Economic Times, BBC, Business Line, & CUSAT, all respected organisations? Aby James (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article and sources do not establish ~~establish~~ notability per guidelines. Fails basic WP:GNG as subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Article has been "reference bombed" with a lot of sources that do not meet this requirement. Current sources:

Deccan Chronicle and Malayala Manorama are deadlinks
Reuters. BBC, The Economic Times, CUSAT, first The Hindu reference, all 3 The Financial Express references, Second Business Line reference, second Malayala Manorama reference make no mention him.
First Business Line reference - one sentence quote about Emerging Kerala Global Connect
Business Standard and IANS - same press release
Second The Hindu - quote about expansion of Startup Village
The Smart CEO is an interview
All five Mathrubhumi references (July 4, 2016, July 11, 2016, July 18, 2016, July 25, 2016, August 1, 2016) - articles written by subject.

None of the references where the subject is mentioned meet all 3 requirements of being significant coverage and independent coverage and in a reliable sources. CBS527^Talk 16:44, 12 February 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. Sandstein 08:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Askari Aviation[edit]

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

Procedural nomination—on reflection, I've reversed my own speedy deletion of this page since although it looks like unsourced and poorly written spam to me, in light of the number of other editors who've edited this page and apparently not seen anything wrong with it there may be something I'm missing. Procedural nomination, so I abstain. ‑ Iridescent 18:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the A7 entirely applies since none of it is significant followed by the fact it's simply a mere business listing. SwisterTwister talk 03:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "back in the day" when this article was created, airlines were regarded as intrinsically notable. Airlines are not intrinsically notable, and the company is not an airline as such anyway, it is an aircraft sales and flying training organization. Sixty-odd edits (excluding bots and the recent deletion-nomination-related activity) in almost eleven years is not very many, and not one has added anything in the way of a reliable source or demonstrated any sort of coverage in such sources, let alone significant coverage. The general notability guidelines have not been met. YSSYguy (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely promotional stuff.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more it isn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the stubby state of the article, we are not being asked to assess the article, we are asked to assess the potential sources in Google Books and News. A look through both Books and News shows this is one of, if not the, major aviation services for K2. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all the work you have put in, it appears that what you have added to the article is based only on passing mentions, not in-depth coverage. YSSYguy (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GN. A few of the sources are unreliable and need to be removed. But even when gone, it meets GN--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the climbing books now referenced in the article, I found the following news sources: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and "Lindsay Griffin reports on triumph and tragedy on the first winter ascent of Gasherbrum I" in Mountain World (unable to provide link to the PDF). None of these are really in-depth, but there are enough to make it notable as the only company doing K2 rescue work. There is probably a lot more coverage in Urdu. MB 02:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, none of these are really in-depth.

The first source listed above has the following: "For civilian and humanitarian purposes, a fee needs to be deposited with Askari Aviation."
The second consists of "Brigadier Nadeem Aslam, C.E.O. of Askari Aviation Services, an agency that is run by former military personnel and supported by the Pakistan Army Aviation"; and "pilots with the Pakistani Army Aviation worked with Huber and Lowe, and conveyed information to Askari Aviation to relay updates".
The third consists of "the Punjab government hires the flying machine for official use from the federal government or Askari Aviation that owned helicopters".
The fourth has "A military-linked firm which operates rescue helicopters in the area, Askari Aviation, said that due to extremely poor weather efforts to airlift Mr Confortola from the mountain had been suspended until tomorrow."
The fifth consists of "Wir informierten sofort die Firma Askari Aviation, die Rettungshubschrauber betreibt", which translates as 'We immediately informed the company Askari Aviation, which operates rescue helicopters'.
The PDF article from Mountain World consists only of "a weather window allowed Askari Aviation fly to 7,000m on the mountain, studying the line of ascent, and later the Normal Route".

These are all passing mentions; and saying "there is probably a lot more coverage in Urdu" is pure speculation.

NadirAli, how does the article's subject meet the GNG? None of what is in the article and none of the references presented bring the article to meet GNG. There are six sources, four of which are used to support a single sentence (in which there appears to have been a bit of synthesis applied) about the company performing mountain rescues. All four of those refs are mere passing mentions:

"Brigadier M. BashirBaz, the head of Askari Aviation, chimed in"
"He proved very capable of managing the difficulties of dealing with Askari Aviation"
"Askari Aviation...operates rescue services" (from the 2008 Lonely Planet guide for Pakistan, which doubtless would also say where the places to eat and sleep are)
"a spokesman of Pakistan's Askari Aviation said the emergency air service has been contacted" (from an article about a missing Spanish climber)

- perhaps that is why four references are deemed necessary to verify one sentence.

The other two sources are an article listing business owned by the Pakistani army (which literally consists only of mentioning the company name among dozens of other such names) and the company's own Facebook page.

In all, in the article and here there are eleven independent sources presented, seven of them demonstrating that the company does rescue work (as do hundreds of other helicopter operators around the world); none of them say that Askari is the only company doing rescue flights in that region. None of the eleven constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". YSSYguy (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of other helicopter operators around the world certainly do rescue work, but I believe this is the only one that does it at the elevations of K2. This is an extreme environment and the circumstances of K2 add to the argument for notability. I realize none of them say it is the "only" rescue available (so I would not say that in the article without a RS). But it is certainly implied as the sources talk about having to pre-arrange a deposit with Askari or there will be no rescue if needed. MB 17:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although there are some tangential quotes from persons who purport to be employed by the subject company, nothing shows that the subject itself is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017[edit]

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

this is simply a mirror of the web page referenced. As per WP:NOTMIRROR this page does not have its place on wikipedia. Domdeparis (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Before I cast any !votes, I would like to know whether this AfD would also encompass the "list of number ones" entries at Template:Gaon. If the rationale for deletion is that any year of this list topic would just copy information from lists like these, then it seems like it would be appropriate to take the entire group to AfD. Icebob99 (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be tempted to say that this kind of list that is a simple copy of information and has no encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of indiscriminate information as per WP:IINFO. In the different lists of N°1s the only references are to the chart's web page. I personally don't see the point. I am not experienced enough to say if these lists or any others should be deleted in a blanket AfD. --Domdeparis (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one streaming songs of 2017 (South Korea) --JustBerry (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Move. ~~I've decided that not only the article content fails WP:IINFO but also the topic itself.~~ Since it specifically mentions Gaon in the title, it inherently is only able to contain material released by Gaon, which would be mirror article content. ~~The nominator might want to take all the articles with Gaon in their name to AfD. I think, however, that the titles in this category that don't include Gaon deserve a separate discussion.~~ Icebob99 (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this include all (or almost all) lists in Category:Lists of number-one songs and Category:Lists of number-one albums then? Strange idea. -- HvW (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC) BTW, where does WP:NOTMIRROR come in anyway? -- HvW (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HvW, I think that the AfD is targeting the fact that the article title reads "Gaon", thus it could only include the lists published by Gaon, rather than an unbiased selection of other ranking websites. Articles in that category don't necessarily include Gaon and thus can contain encyclopedic information that isn't copied off the Gaon website. If this were just a List of number ones of 2017, then there would be no reason for deletion. Since it is titled List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017, however, it can only use information published by Gaon, thus making it like a mirror. Icebob99 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So you would delete Lists of Billboard Hot 100 number-one songs because it says "Billboard", but you would keep Lists of number-one digital songs in the United States‎ because it is about the "United States" in general. Clever. What about just renaming the Gaon list then? -- HvW (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NOTMIRROR states that Wikipedia is not a mirror of other web sites. The information on these list are simply a mirror of the information on the chart website with nothing else added. If you want to find the number one for week 12/11/2016 to 17/11/2016 on the Gaon charts you go to the website of the Gaon charts and the advantage is that you have all the other songs in the charts. That said I am now having second thoughts about the nomination because the advantage of these lists is the possibility of seeing a a glance the Number 1s for an entire year and also see which songs stayed in for a certain number of weeks in a row... Domdeparis (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HvW, yes, I would delete the Billboard lists for the same reason that I gave above. The difference between having Billboard and United States in the title means that the Billboard list can only include information from the Billboard ranking, whereas the United States list could have other rankings, thus making it NPOV on the topic of lists of #1 songs. That said, let's not consider those lists for deletion until this discussion gets hashed out, because a consensus here would be a good indicator of whether those lists are indeed encyclopedic. I would support renaming the Gaon list to List of South Korean number ones of 2016, but the list would have to be substantially reworked, because I'm not sure that Gaon is the South Korean equivalent of Billboard, based on this google search. (If someone could indeed clarify whether Gaon is like Billboard, I would appreciate that). That would leave us with two options: 1. delete the article and create lists with the NPOV title South Korea, or 2. move the page to the NPOV title South Korea and leave the current content (with a few tweaks as a result of the title change). The two cases depend on whether Gaon is like Billboard. I'll strike my delete !vote and change it to a Move !vote if the second case holds true, but based on what I found about Gaon, it looks like the first case would be appropriate. Either way, the page can't keep its current title (and that might apply to Billboard as well). Icebob99 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm doing those list in the German Wikipedia I can assure you that Gaon is for South Korea what Billboard is for the US or OCC for the UK, GfK for Germany and Oricon for Japan. Gaon are the official chart makers. Since I am kind of a "chart freak" in de: and those lists are even longer around in the WP than I am, I think this AfD discussion is strange. But then, we do not have NOTMIRROR in de:, at least not in the way it was explained here. So I won't vote here, but it would be a great loss. Most official sites are not offering those number one lists in the way the WP does, and you've got the bonus of the links to more information about songs, albums, and artists. And we need the lists because ... we have nobody who can translate the Korean song titles ;-) -- HvW (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HvW, thanks for the info. I'll change my !vote to Move based on what I said above. Thanks for adding your input :) Icebob99 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Move It's a Lists of number-one songs from the official chart of South Korea Gaon Chart, if this page is deleted than all the same pages for other countries like Japan & US should be also deleted, because all of them serves the same purpose. GD.BB (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GD.BB, would you want to move the page instead to a NPOV title? See the discussion above for details. Icebob99 (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the page from Gaon list to List of South Korean number one is strange and does not make sense, if the name is changed then it would be right also to change Lists of Billboard Hot 100 number-one songs to Lists of United States number-one songs and the same goes for Oricon. I find it right to keep the current title, since everyone know that Gaon is the official chart of Korea just like Billboard is for US. Also for the WP:NOTMIRROR, I could see the point that it's a mirror of the web page, but that's not fully right; in Gaon official site most of the titles of the songs and names of the artists are written in Hangul, and for a normal English reader who wants to find the number-one song will be simply lost in the site, Wikipedia provides English title of both songs and artist and make it easier for non-korean to read. GD.BB (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GD.BB, I suggested above that renaming the Billboard articles would also be appropriate (again, for NPOV). I may not be a representative sample of the population at large, but I didn't know that Gaon was the official chart of South Korea. I'm an American, and I didn't even know that Billboard was the premier chart in the United States. The point is that Wikipedia has to be accessible to all readers, and not just those who might find it convenient to have the charts labeled by corporation rather than by country. That makes it harder for the reader to understand which country it references (for instance, I don't know which country Oricon represents). Also, I don't think that a list being in a different language than its source circumvents WP:NOTMIRROR, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a translation service for those who wish to read the Gaon charts in their native language. If it's the same information, albeit in a different language, then it mirrors the content of the website. Icebob99 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Icebob99, I agree with renaming the page, it would be more appropriate, but I oppose with deleting it, South Korea is consider one of the biggest music markets in the world based on IFPI, and I believe their are many people interested in knowing the charts in the country and which artist is charting on the top, and about the WP:NOTMIRROR, I've added more sources from the Korea Music Content Industry Association (KMCIA). GD.BB (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GD.BB: I also oppose deleting it. I changed my !vote to move earlier. Glad this AfD is picking up momentum again. Icebob99 (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree that there doesn't need to/shouldn't be a "list of number ones" for every chart from every country, but I would argue reaching number one on the Hot 100 or on the main UK singles chart becomes notable in itself with coverage of the accomplishment found in 3rd party sources. There have been books solely dedicated to these achievements. I can't believe that any coverage exists for an album when it reaches number one on the Billboard Alternative Albums chart or a song for topping the Billboard Rhythmic chart beyond the release of the chart itself indicating its chart position. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on lack of coverage on the chart itself and thus even being number one on this chart is subject to notability concerns as a standalone list. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability of Gaon Digital Chart itself is questionable as only one independent reference is listed. This offshoot provides no independent authoritative references to show this particular chart enjoys any notability and clearly fails the notability requirement.--Rpclod (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rpclod, I don't know how is notability of Gaon is questionable, since it's the official chart of South Korea, same as Billboard in US, and therefore the same will goes for List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2017, since all the sources in the page are from only Billboard and no other sites. Either way I added new sources from Korea Music Content Industry Association (KMCIA) in the page. GD.BB (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judgeship of Rayagada, Orissa[edit]

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

So every district and many larger talukas in India have a district court and various other courts functioning under it. I see no reason why the legal infrastructure system of every district should have a separate article. the editor clearly has WP:COI here as he seems to have uploaded various pictures too of the court employees. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apart from badly needing editing, this appears to be an attempt to reference a number of disparate judicial and related entities due to geographic vicinity. However, nothing indicates that this collection has any particular notability by itself.--Rpclod (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

District Legal Services Authority, Rayagada[edit]

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

District Legal Services Authority exists in multiple districts and larger talukas in India. This particular branch seems to be no specifically different or outstanding in any encyclopedic manner. The editor seems t have WP:COI as they have uploaded images of employee too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent, authoritative references are given. Nothing shows notability. This appears to be a minor government or NGO entity.--Rpclod (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Mensah[edit]

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

Puffery-heavy but source-light -- "light", as in "essentially non-existent" -- biography of an inspirational speaker. Lots of name-dropping, little sign of actual notability. Calton | Talk 08:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only references are self-promotion, much like the article itself appears to be.--Rpclod (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article on a public speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don Gregorio Antón[edit]

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

Article about non-notable photographer and Professor. Doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:ACADEMIC. Google and NYT searches provides nothing to establish notability in these areas. CBS527^Talk 21:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC) CBS527^Talk 21:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a retirement article from the subject's employer is not enough to demonstrate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Patience (George Michael album). Kurykh (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patience (George Michael song)[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited, nor has it been established in the content of the article. It is not a single. It did not chart. It has not won any awards. It is simply a song on an album. Kellymoat (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sock strikeKeep- If being a single and having awards is the criteria for a song being 'Notable', then why there is there are no proposed delete for Southampton Dock by Pink Floyd, It's the Falling in Love by Michael Jackson and The New Timer by Bruce Springsteen. I really want to assume good faith but when I see things like this I just wonder why. Anyway the song Patience is notable enough to have been reviewed by the Chicago Tribune, its nature being one of the anti-war songs in the album, being performed live in a concert tour. Aside from the fact is it from Michael's final studio album of original material. Although there are multiple citations in the article, there is still work need to be done to improve but deleting is not the solution. GM25LIVE (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - we can worry about other articles later. Right now, the issue is THIS article. Why is the subject of this article notable? Independently. Separate from the album. Separate from the artist. Solely based on the song, and only the song. Kellymoat (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sock strikeWikipedia:Other stuff exists Well it can be a valid argument. The song is notable for being one of the anti-war songs in the album (along with Shoot the Dog) and specifically mentioned by albums reviewers for that reason as well as being the a title track and opening/ending track of the album. I think this establish some kind notability even if you disagree with the level of such notability GM25LIVE (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sock strikeKeep- The song was included in the artist's Greatest Hits compilation. Faithtour (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Patience (George Michael album). Being released as a single is not what makes a song notable, charting doesn't make it notable, winning awards doesn't make it notable - however, those are things that could result in the song being discussed in reliable sources, which IS what makes a song notable and what WP:NSONGS says. The sources provided are specifically discussing the album Patience so a redirect is warranted per the statement in NSONGS which says "coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sock strike Keep should be kept and improved. From the context of being a protest song, the article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. It is both an opening and ending track of the album, Patience and also appears in a greatest hits compilation from the artist. Although it has limited references, a constructive editor could add more to improve the article ChargerHellcat (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Patience (George Michael album). There doesn't seem to be any coverage of this song separate from the album. Doesn't satisfy elements of WP:NSONG. Gab4gab (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Divyen Raithatha[edit]

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

Promotional biography for a non-notable producer and businessman. Re-created twice by blocked, possibly paid, editors. The article is entirely based on trivial company listings and a few short promo interviews for a movie, with almost no independent coverage about the producer himself, let alone in-depth coverage. His other business activities have no independent sources at all. A Google search in English showed no other usable sources. The last AfD-debate has been NAC-closed as "no consensus", although it had 2 delete statements (incl. nom) from experienced Wikipedia editors. GermanJoe (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two references are about the movie, not the subject. Other references are dead links, industry directories, or the subject's corporate website. No authoritative references demonstrate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sart[edit]

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

Non-notable minor actor lacking significant support. reddogsix (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A quick google search fails to establish notability and therefore failing NACTOR and GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 02:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Van Hoof[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE sources. Does not meet any of the requirements of WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - although the article just indicates "signed with HC Fassa for the 2006-07 Serie A season" but credible online sources shows substantial playtime. I understand that HC Fossa qualified as a "top professional league" at that time and hence the article should squeak thru WP:NHOCKEY "presumptions" of notability. The subject's play in Asia League Ice Hockey may also qualify.--Rpclod (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: Please read NHOCKEY more carefully, it is not "top professional league in a country", it is top professional leagues in the world. Per the ice hockey league assessment (based on the amount and type of media coverage a given league receives), Serie A is considered a low-level league. Asia League has absolutely no inherent notability. Mr. Van Hoof must meet GNG anyways, regardless of any presumed notability. Yosemiter (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected as to "top professional league". NHOCKEY itself just says: "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league". However, it references "the ice hockey league assessment maintained by the Ice Hockey WikiProject." Whoever maintains the NHOCKEY criteria list may want to provide a link from "top professional league" to WP:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/League_assessment#Top_level_leagues. The subject appears to have played for the following:

Ontario Hockey League (part of Canadian Hockey League) - Lower-level
ECHL (fka East Coast Hockey League) - Lower-level
American Hockey League - Fully professional minor
Serie A (ice hockey) (now Alps Hockey League - Lower-level
Central Hockey League - Lower-level
Asia League Ice Hockey - unlisted
Federal Hockey League - unlisted
English Premier Ice Hockey League - unlisted
Elite Ice Hockey League - Lower-level

What is meant by the following NHOCKEY criterion? "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant". My non-hockey mind assumes both Serie A and Asia League would qualify. Also, why is the subject not considered to have "Played at least 200 games *** in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues".--Rpclod (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: It has everything to do with coverage of a league by independent and international media likely to meet the standards of GNG, which is what is meant to presume notability. As for the"Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant", I believe that comes from players in the older days of hockey (pre-NHL and such), where a significant player may be harder to prove GNG due to difficulties in finding sources. @Ravenswing:, @Djsasso:, and many others can explain far more in depth than I can, but it comes down to is the question of "Can a player in the top level Egyptian league automatically meet GNG in a nation where the sports gets near-zero coverage?"

As for the list of leagues you mention, the unlisted ones are not even the top level in their region or type (the KHL is in Asia as well) and simply have not demonstrated any signs of automatic notability. If a player does get significant coverage there, it is likely because they were a star player for the league and generated the coverage necessary to meet GNG on its own. Yosemiter (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will withdraw my initial !vote.--Rpclod (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence this undistinguished journeyman in the mid-minors meets the GNG. Truth be told, Yosemiter, you're doing just fine. To address Rpclod's remarks, first off, NHOCKEY does have a link between its criteria and the league assessment list, and has had since the league assessment list was created, several years ago. Indeed, we did not choose to link the words "top professional league" -- which isn't any more obvious a link prospect than "top-level minor leagues," "second tier national leagues," "lower minor or major junior league" or any other part of NHOCKEY addressed by NHOCKEY/LA -- but thought, perhaps erroneously, that linking NHOCKEY/LA in the very first sentence of the criteria would nor prove an unusual burden to other editors to find. Secondly, Yosemiter's exactly right: criterion #2 was intended to address that notable North American players played in the 19th century before the advent of professional leagues, and that Eastern Bloc players in countries such as Russia and Czechoslavia did so in the days when those national leagues were technically "amateur," so that we could just not airily state that amateur leagues were inherently non-notable. (Serie A and the Asia League being both, as it happens, pro leagues, I'm not seeing the relevance of the issue here.)
That being said, many people unfamiliar with ice hockey over the years have both been confused by the verbiage of NHOCKEY (understandable) and surprisingly resistant to take the word of veteran editors as to what the clauses mean (less so). The language has been tweaked many times to attempt to address the oft-conflicting problems presented both by editors unfamiliar with hockey and those hellbent on exploiting any loophole, real or imagined, to protect their pet articles. At this remove, short of rewriting it to be several times as long as any other NSPORTS set of subordinate notability criteria, and with condescendingly direct language, NHOCKEY is what it is. Could you see your way clear to accepting that Yosemiter's explanation does, indeed, reflect consensus as to what the criteria means? Ravenswing 00:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much summed up better than I could above. -DJSasso (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aydın karşılaması[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching for "Aydın karşılaması", "Αϊδίνικος καρσιλαμάς", "Αϊδίνικος χορός", and Karsilamas aydin I find no sources that indicate this is a notable karsilamas. — Sam Sailor 18:19, 9 February 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.

https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=ZKODDfNVMmsC&pg=PA74&dq=%CE%91%CF%8A%CE%B4%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%82&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM2PXgu-jRAhVpIMAKHZLjDb8Q6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=%CE%91%CF%8A%CE%B4%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%82&f=false Samizambak (talk) 15:15, 12 February 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 redirect to Nick Warren. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for Nena[edit]

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

No non-primary references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Richhoncho (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not mentioned in artist's article, but might be worth redirecting there. I couldn't find evidence it meets WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think it hurts having this article, it's not like it harms the database or creates possible ambiguity or people hitting the article looking for something else, thus i'm against deletion --ThG (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Artist - Wikipedia shouldn't be a song catalog unless the song is, itself, notable. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfinance[edit]

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

Neologism (WP:NEO) created by SPA and de-PRODded by same, possibly creation of Crowdnetic. Brianhe (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)}} Brianhe (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems to be a term that's used outside of Crowdnetic. Cosmic Sans (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CNBC seems to indicate a connection here: the Crowdfinance 50 Index is apparently created and computed by Crowdnetic. And the Crowdfinance Conference is definitely Crowdnetic's creation [13] ("Nowstreet owned and operated by Crowdnetic"). - Brianhe (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable promotional neologism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we always have with such advert-supported information. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:18, 5 February 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://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/2015-03-23/Amberpet-Farming-community%E2%80%99s-home-IS%E2%80%88Now-a-busy-suburb-139323.

[2] "Google News results for Krishnan Ganesh".

[3] "Google News results for Sijo Kuruvilla George".

[1]

[2]

[3]