Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 January	13 January >

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 merge to President of Ghana. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

President-elect of Ghana[edit]

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

Similar to WP:CRUFT, and WP:1R. --Nevé –selbert 23:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to President of Ghana. There's simply not enough for a stand-alone article. There is a President-elect of the United States, as well as for several other countries. With the exception of the US, they appear to be simply redirects to their respective president articles, and I think the US article should be merged/redirected to United States presidential transition. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ No policy/guideline reason for deletion has been given. Per WP:POLITICIAN, those elected to national office are presumed to be notable. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

President-elect is a pseudo-office, not a politician, so that policy does not apply. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline includes people who had been elected to the Presidency, but not yet assumed it. Presumably, an article about all of those people would be notable. Nevertheless, those seeking to delete content must provide a policy/guideline reason, and nobody has done so. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 13:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The office is "president", not "president-elect" — the latter is not an office in and of itself, but merely means that the person has won election to the office of president and merely not been sworn in as the actual president yet. So it's simply not a concept that requires a separate article from the concept of "president of Ghana". Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason has been given for the article to be deleted. And the article complies with the guidelines of writing an article. The fact is the position exists and comes into effect when a presidential candidate is elected. In this case it was Nana Akuffo Addo till 7th January 2017. To counter the argument that there is not enough for a stand alone article, why should that be a reason to delete the article. This article contains adequate information about the President elect of Ghana. And by the way, if there isnt enough information, isn't the whole point of Wikipedia that people can create,edit and add more information to articles? Sankento123 (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2017 (CET)
@Clarityfiend, Ramaksoud2000, and Sankento123: Any thoughts on merging the article contents to President of Ghana?--Nevé –selbert 02:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to President of Ghana. "President-elect" is not an "office" in and of itself, but merely means that the person is temporarily inside the transition period between one's election to the office of president and one's actual swearing-in as president — so it is not a concept that requires a separate article from the main one on the office itself. Every political position that exists at all has a temporary transition period during which a person has won the election but doesn't actually hold the office yet — and it's simply not useful for us to maintain parallel sets of articles for "office" and "office-elect" for every office. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge Bearcat convinced me. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge Much better than to delete. Sankento123 ^{(Talk to me)} 17:23, 16 January 2017 (CET)
- Sankento123, would you mind crossing your keep vote with <s> and </s>, as not to confuse the eventual closer of this discussion?--Nevé –selbert 17:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~/Merge Much better than to delete. Sankento123 ^{(Talk to me)} 08:51, 17 January 2017 (CET)
Merge into President of Ghana. NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 06:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Dunn[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER. PROD was removed by page author without explanation. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non notable.★Trekker (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The silver star and the action in question are insufficiently notable to pass WP:SOLDIER. I note that per WP:PROD, You are encouraged, but not required, to also explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion. I just mention this because an IP once went ballistic on me. [1] Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:SOLDIER. reddogsix (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not Notable Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 01:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 04:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough to show notability. I am also skeptical as to the unsupported claim that no other Marine who attended Michigan State ever won awards equal to or higher than a Silver Star and a Bronze Star with V. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NCO with a single third-level decoration. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. I thank the subject for his service to my country, but he's not notable. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 15:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for separate article, per WP:GNG. Kierzek (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability criteria. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 19:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 11:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryder Scott[edit]

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

No claim of notability. The result of a prior 2011 discussion was delete and the article was recreated a year later. Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without seeing the earlier state of the article I'm assuming from the history the deleted version was promotional - there has clearly been COI editing. But this is the third of the best known oil reserve assessors after DeGolyer and MacNaughton and Gaffney, Cline & Associates and Forbes: Volume 157, Issues 9-12 1996 "Among the best are long-established petroleum engineering firms like Dallas-based DeGolyerand Mac-Naughton and Houston-based Ryder Scott & Co." makes the company's notability fairly clear. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also with 5,400 Google Book hits for "Ryder Scott" and 1,510 Google News hits it's not exactly short of sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should have added those sources if there were plenty of them in the internet when you created the article. Nonetheless, I think it's appropriate to withdraw this AfD following your cleanup of the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jetstreamer: those sources were in the article when I created it. Where COI editors are present useful to check page history before submitting AFDs. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were no references in the article when I nominated it for deletion [2].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the reason to check the article's history BEFORE nominating it for deletion. From the history one could see that the article once was a well-sourced stub with clear notability about the subject before it was made an unsourced promotional article by a number of SPAs. Instead of a nomination for deletion, one should restore the version before the SPAs edits. Beagel (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ARTN "... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." In any case, the article now is a solid stub, and if there are questions, it should be tagged for specific improvement, not for deletion.ch (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were no claims of notability at the time of AFDing [3].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and sourced, so the rationale for deletion is not valid any more. Beagel (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks notable to me and there are sources present - looks like this may have been cleaned up as a result of the AfD. -- Dane ^talk 02:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vecna. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hand of Vecna[edit]

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vecna. It has, nearly word-for-word, the same text as the previous article on the Eye of Vecna except for brief differences in the "Powers" section. As the article on the Eye has already been merged to the main Vecna article, and that article already contains the information on the Hand, no action is needed other than a Redirect. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vecna, unless some substantial third-party sources can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I think the Tor link shows a start of notability, or merge to Vecna. BOZ (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - Tor link is better than nothing, but it's still just a passing mention. Grayfell (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as "start to notability" is not the same as notable. Longevitydude (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vecna, no need at all for a separate article. Wachholder (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Chen (writer)[edit]

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

I'm not sure how she meets WP:GNG. "She founded a female magazine," but the reference doesn't say what it's called, and most likely it has folded. "In the United States, she... volunteered with a Living Library programme at elementary schools, where she told stories from Chinese culture" how is that notable? Neither is donating money to an earthquake. Clearly fails WP:Professor test. References 5-8 are just books written by her, not WP:RS. Reference 1 is just a listing of one of her books (Ref 7) on Douban.com. (Honestly, a Chinese book with only 23 votes on Douban.com, with 200 million registered users, should be considered obscure.) Page is orphaned but has a close-up photo, hmm.... (actually the same photo appears in Reference 2 with a caption that says "provided by the interviewee, Hong Chen".)Timmyshin (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In the United States, she... volunteered with a Living Library programme at elementary schools, where she told stories from Chinese culture" is notable because she has since founded a similar programme at her univeristy. The WorldCat publication entries have been deleted and her awards have been added. Amys eye 10:02， 13/01/2017 (UTC)

I don't think such a program confers notability. The awards are non-notable. Googling "百本旅人最爱图书奖" (100 Books Most Beloved by Travellers Prize") and "《新女报》传媒集团年度文化人物奖" (New Woman Magazine Cultural Figure of the Year Award) only returns results about her. Timmyshin (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable as a professor or author. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No valid sources that I can find in English.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NACADEMIC -- Dane ^talk 02:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not yet established. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earv Opong[edit]

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

Community college basketball player whose highest level was streetballing. Sources are mainly listings of stats in college and passing mentions, while the article itself is very trivial. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete comes no where near passing the notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IIHF Inline Hockey World Championship[edit]

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

Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Only primary sources which do not demonstrate notability. Full of redlinks. Has been tagged with WP:POV for nearly 3 years. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep USA hockey, periodicals in New Zealand, the hockey house regularly, frequent coverage in Australia, hockey Canada coverage, and it goes on and on. Not to mention that it is a world championship governed by a major international sports body.18abruce (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@18abruce: yes tons of hockey websites have information about a hockey event... That doesn't establish notability. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the websites listed are hockey websites. And that was just a sampling of only english sites.18abruce (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@18abruce: you are correct. You listed 5 websites... 4 were hockey sites and 1 was a ticket sales agency... None of which establish notability. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does TSN count? Sorry about the ticket sales one, the substance is a copy and paste from the Taranaki news site and I picked the wrong one by accident. I was actually surprised that there was a lot more (english anyway) coverage of the FIRS championship available out there. Henrik freaking Lundqvist played in it, it is a bigger deal in Europe.18abruce (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there is no question about IIHF's notability and legitimacy, I don't see how their world championship will be found nonnotable. Timmyshin (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like a pretty silly nomination. There is absolutely no question to the notability of this world championship. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of "banished" words and phrases[edit]

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

Couple things. First, this article gives the appearance of an indiscriminate list of information - or listcruft to be more precise. The article lede mentions that it contains lists of words sought by Lake Superior State University, BBC, and the NYT which people (who?) wish to see "banished", but the references and sources give an undue weight to Lake Superior State University; the sole mention of the NYT in the article is a list of buzzwords in 2009, and even then the referenced article does not indicate or imply a wish to see the words expunged from usage. The article's purpose seems to draw attention to this university's lists - and only giving a random selection from the lists at that. I see very little encyclopedic value to be found from this.

I should also note I came upon this article when browsing MOS:WTW listed under "See also". It may give the false impression that these words are not to be used on Wikipedia at any point. WaltCip (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The statement in the lead that "Listed below are some of their selections" makes it clear that this is an editor's personal selection, and hence is original research. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename, This indeed has some problems, starting from the weird use of the word banish, which is not explained anywhere on [4], but seems to be their 'cute/eyecatching' synonym for overused. So if the list survives, it should certainly be moved to the List of overused words and phrases. Now, the second problem is whether the list is notable. It is based on few newspaper articles about words which some journalists don't like, but also on a list by LSSU, a university. It is all somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the LSSU list has received some coverage in secondary, reliable sources: timeshighereducation, insidehighered and a bunch of regional media. It was talked about briefly on NPR. It gets some cites in Google Books, is a subject of few pages of diary/interview at Jerry Zezima (4 January 2016). Grandfather Knows Best: A Geezer’s Guide to Life, Immaturity, and Learning How to Change Diapers All Over Again. iUniverse. pp. 101–. ISBN 978-1-4917-8550-8.... I think the LSSU list is notable by itself, and the other sources used are closely related, so I don't think we are dealing with synthesis or OR. It would be good to clearly indicate which words were declared as overused by LSSU and which by the general press, but that is an issue with the list quality, not notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the concept of the list is notable by itself, it needs to be separated out into its own article, and the article needs to explain and detail - as you have above - why the list is notable. The article should not be an "editor's choice" of overused words from various publications of the list.--WaltCip (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems mostly WP:OR. Nothing to tie this together into an article, it's just a collection of some words listed by various sources as 'overused', 'banished', or 'banned'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, consider rename and focusing edits. As Piotrus notes above, the Lake Superior State lists are notable, receiving coverage in national and foreign media : see the GNews and HighBeam "findsources" links above for the search string <"banished words" "Lake Superior">. The article should be more clearly focused on those lists. In response to the nominator's additional comment above, I agree that any implication that this article states a Wikipedia editing guideline should be avoided.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completely changing the title of the article at the same time as 'focusing' on some specific lists (which would mean both adding and deleting large numbers of entries) sounds to me very much like creating an entirely new article. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the variety of reasons brought up by the nominator. A lot of this article is synthesis, where the article creator is taking a multitude of sources about overused words, and combining them to make his own list of "banished" words. For example, the 2009 NYT article is a tongue-in-cheek article complaining about buzzwords, which the article creator combines with the LSSU yearly list of "banished" words to make up his own list. Another, the 2011 Forbes article, is an article about the most used words on LinkedIn, which the article again combines with the "banished" concept from LSSU. All of this is pure synthesis.

And, for the argument that the LSSU list is, by itself, notable, like MichaelMaggs said above, if we get to the point that the article needs to be renamed, rewritten,and resourced, that is essentially a completely new article. There is no reason for this one to be kept for that one to be created. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely throw this intellectually bankrupt list under the bus. It's only a list cobbled together (OR) of words/phrases people want voted out of existence. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim all the content with the possible exception of the Lake Superior State lists, as already noted above. --Katangais (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As previously mentioned, the LSSU lists currently existing on the article are an arbitrary selection of the actual lists. If you are proposing we post the full lists on there, I feel like the article becomes even more of an indiscriminate collection of info. If the idea is to indicate that the lists are notable, then that needs to be fully outlined in the article, otherwise we are just acting as a free webspace for LSSU.--WaltCip (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list fails WP:GNG by not having significant coverage. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 14:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clarityfiend and others. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and is mostly WP:OR. -- Dane ^talk 02:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Geromella[edit]

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

No real claim of notability. Transient media coverage due to a minor 2012 controversy, but other than that, nothing substantial that would count towards WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly written to the point it is close to be nuked, but the main problem is it does not assert notability, which seems to be based on some minor WP:ONEEVENT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ONEEVENT, other coverage is not substantial. Daß Wölf 16:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is not advancing a rationale for deletion, but rather, a nomination for transclusion, which would involve either 1) moving the page into template namespace and then transcluding it, or retaining the page and transcluding it, or 2) merging the content into the main proposed article, if the nominator is using the term "transclusion" in the context of merging. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Vrienden van het Platteland season[edit]

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

No need for this outdated article as the content can be easily transcluded in the parent article Vrienden van het Platteland The Banner talk 17:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is not advancing a rationale for deletion, but rather, a nomination for transclusion, which would involve either 1) moving the page into template namespace and then transcluding it, or retaining the page and transcluding it, or 2) merging the content into the main proposed article, if the nominator is using the term "transclusion" in the context of merging. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Lotto–Belisol Ladiesteam season[edit]

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

No need for this outdated article as the content can be easily transcluded in the parent article Lotto–Soudal Ladies The Banner talk 17:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is not advancing a rationale for deletion, but rather, a nomination for transclusion, which would involve either 1) moving the page into template namespace and then transcluding it, or retaining the page and transcluding it, or 2) merging the content into the main proposed article, if the nominator is using the term "transclusion" in the context of merging. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Buitenpoort-Flexpoint Team season[edit]

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

No need for this outdated article as the content can be easily transcluded in the parent article Team Flexpoint The Banner talk 17:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to George Galloway. T. Canens (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Time George Galloway in Finchley controversy[edit]

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

Per the discussion on the talk page, I don't quite see why this one-off controversy deserves its own, standalone page, under this unheard of name. It should be, and already is, noted briefly on the Question Time and George Galloway pages – both without a discrete heading. As those pages note, both the programme and Galloway have a string of individual controversies to their names. Is the argument that every single QT controversy (see also here and here) or every single Galloway should be spun out and given its own sub-page? Most don't, and nor should they. The only QT one which does, AFAICT, is the Nick Griffin appearance, which this seems to be modelled on – but that arguably helped lead to the demise of the BNP so has huge significance, whereas this is just one passing event in Galloway's life.
Yes there are sources for this, but they are all pretty much media sources from the time or thereabouts, and overall this fails WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE. N-HH talk/edits 11:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. N-HH talk/edits 11:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How often are politicians reputed prejudices and supposed incitement for racial hatred the subject of debate for about twenty minutes on television? This edition of Question Time was a significant debate after George Galloway was involved in several incidents which suggested he has a difficult relationship with Jews and a total antipathy towards Israel.

Many Wikipedia articles are fixed in time, and the ones to which WP:LASTING most apply are likely not to be accessed very often and so remain unnoticed as a target for deletionists. WP:LASTING ends with the comment: "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable". Because the Israel-Palestine conflict is an ongoing issue, and so are allegedly inflammatory comments by George Galloway about the region, this may not remain a closed issue. In other words, it is too early to say decisively that this article should be removed. Philip Cross (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect: Galloway is well known for his views on Israel, which he has voiced on numerous occasions, and this incident is no more significant than any other involving him. Had this incident led to the demise of his career (as the Griffin appearance did for the BNP) then we'd have a strong argument for a standalone article. Instead, I think a redirect to the appropriate section of George Galloway would be enough, and add anything that's missing to that from what we have here. This is Paul (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on george Galloway. There is no reason to have a seperate article on this subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BWD Electronics[edit]

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

This company doesn't meet WP:NCORP as far as I can tell. The references provided in this article are about the individual products cataloged here. The "history" section is completely un-referenced. Mikeblas (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching Trove returns only six useful-looking stories about this firm [5]. Given the era in which it operated includes that for which Trove provides good coverage, this strongly indicates that the firm is not notable. Nick-D (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I might be persuaded otherwise. Direct references to this organisation are few and far between. However, searches seem to indicate that this company's products were and still are very widely used and respected. Also, searches by McVan Instruments also turn up references, potentially verifying relevant parts of the History section. While technically failing GNG and NCORP this organisation does appear to have very significant industry penetration and respect - perhaps just a quiet achiever. Aoziwe (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need refs not spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NOT we are not a product catalogue for the company in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both the trove and gnews search shows very limited coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam / product listing; this content belongs on the company web site. Wikipedia is not a sales brochure / WP:CATALOG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sub Surface Catalisation[edit]

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

This is a case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTSOAPBOX the process has not yet been marketed as tweeted by the company which invented it and this page is clearly for promotional purposes. There are no independent sources cited in the article. Domdeparis (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not implemented and not seeing any basis for referring to the process by this name (and shouldn't it be "Subsurface catalysation"?: Noyster (talk), 12:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence the process is used in practice. Possibly a merge into 3D printing#Processes, but even that would be a stretch. GregorB (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Blechman[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The article cites flimsy and unreliable sources. A quick Google search show very little to convince of real notability. He is already mentioned on the Twinlab page, which is quite enough given the notability of the subject. Susana Hodge (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is not advancing a rationale for deletion, but rather, a nomination for transclusion, which would involve either 1) moving the page into template namespace and then transcluding it, or retaining the page and transcluding it, or 2) merging the content into the main proposed article, if the nominator is using the term "transclusion" in the context of merging. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Vrienden van het Platteland season[edit]

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

No need for this outdated article as the content can be easily transcluded in the parent article Vrienden van het Platteland The Banner talk 17:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the biggest 2006 women's cycling teams. Part of a series on Category:Cycling team seasons. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations.com[edit]

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

Just a run off the mill website. Nothing especially notable, not media coverage besides a few mentions in lists. Susana Hodge (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some evidence to show that it's fairly well thought of (see this, this, and this) - it looks like it's discussed in this book, under just the name "Abbreviations". I can't look at the rest of the book for the exact area, but it's an ALA book. I also have to note that being selected for one of the ALA's best of lists is something that would give at least partial notability, as inclusion in these lists is considered to be an award or at the very least a recognition of significance. I'm not making a judgement either way, but it does look like there is at least some significance here - if there was a list page to redirect to or if the founder or parent company had an article it'd warrant a mention there at the very least. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not the strongest keep, but the site has had a review in an academic journal and another in Choice, which is quite well thought of. (Our own DGG can attest to its reliability.) There was also a mention in what looked to be an academic source, as it was put out by the Linguistic Center of the University of Lisbon, which helps as well. I'm not sure about how major the Red Herring award would be or the Writer's Digest, but I do know that the ALA list mention would give at least some notability, especially as it is one of their annual lists. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ALA 's Best Free Reference websites plus the other information is sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely notable and reliable per sources posted above. -- Dane ^talk 03:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the recent revisions by Tokyogirl, Sadads (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is not advancing a rationale for deletion, but rather, a nomination for transclusion, which would involve either 1) moving the page into template namespace and then transcluding it, or retaining the page and transcluding it, or 2) merging the content into the main proposed article, if the nominator is using the term "transclusion" in the context of merging. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Equipe Nürnberger Versicherung season[edit]

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

No need for this outdated article as the content can be easily transcluded in the parent article Equipe Nürnberger Versicherung The Banner talk 17:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the biggest 2006 women's cycling teams. Part of a series on Category:Cycling team seasons. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ow, I will believe that they were a great team. But that article does not show that. For instance, when you look at the sections "Season victories" and "Results in major races" you see nothing, just empty sections. At best, it is another of your unfinished articles. The Banner talk 22:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Lacrosse Collegiate Draft[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now I'm not sure we're looking at the same page. There are very few redlinks. This is in fact a master List of Major League Lacrosse Collegiate Drafts (and I think should be renamed as such) and until such time as the individual drafts years are deleted, we could use a list for navigation purposes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, should all those drafts-by-year get deleted, there'd be no need for a list of them. Then it's a question of whether we need a separate article on the draft as distinct from Major League Lacrosse. Probably not, based on what would be left in the nommed article -- the nominator's right about that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Shawn says, this is a legitimate list of mainly bluelinked draft articles. As noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001 Major League Lacrosse Collegiate Draft, the MLL drafts are substantially covered in media (see the GNews and HighBeam results in the findsources links above), and I don't see a reason to remove this draft information, which is sourceable and similar to draft articles we have for other sports. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a valid list and there aren't many redlinked articles in it. -- Dane ^talk 03:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of locations of the DC Universe. T. Canens (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lazarus Pit[edit]

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

A fictional location mentioned in a number of primary sources (comics, now a TV series or two). Nothing show this passes Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). At best, a summary could be merged to List of locations of the DC Universe. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article or list if sources cannot be shown to exist. TTN (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of locations of the DC Universe. It's not independently notable, but it is notable within the fiction and it would be needlessly cumbersome to explain it on numerous articles instead of linking it. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now for lack of a suitable redirect target. Ubiquitous enough to be a plausible search term; not a discrete location so the proposed redirect target is inappropriate. It's not "a location", and we don't yet have an article like Natural features of the DC Universe which would be an accurate redirect target. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth paragraph under Fictional history give the location of the 5 Lazarus Pits with a source. I don't have access to the source to confirm, but it seems like enough of a location to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe. The article is uncited / self-cited in-universe prose; zero encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a DC Comics Wiki. I don't see a reason for a merge as no independent sources are present. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some level of merging is needed because Lazarus Pit is not currently listed on [[List of locations of the DC Universe]]... Argento Surfer (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aashish Kalra[edit]

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

Most of the references are either press releases or articles about Kalra's company Cambridge Technology Enterprises. Article was created and developed by a now-blocked group of socks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk

Merge into article on his company, fixes the BLP issues and I dont see lack of notability of the company, although it doesnt yet have an article. I am aware of the illicit history of the article but we should not judge the article on its having been created by people clueless as to wikipedia but by our notability standards. Am happy to do the merge if that is what the community wants. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising given the sources are all published and republished advertising announcements which accompany the fact this is still advertising his own companies and services, and that alone is always enough for delete by our policies. If all there is to support the claims for the company itself is PR, then that by itself is enough to delete and not start an article since there's no policy-supported substance. SwisterTwister talk 00:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete all but the Olympics-related articles. Is there some script to batch-delete the articles or should that be done manually? Tone 17:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of junior cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships[edit]

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

Unnecessary list, when all the athletes competing are already in the results article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons:[reply]

Also adding more:

Also adding more:

Also adding more:

Delete - Redundant list of athletes that is already available elsewhere.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More of SvG's bot-created articles. All redundant. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Articles are not bot-created. Lists meet notability standards, why are they redundant? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nimrodbr (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Whoever is closing this should ignore this vote unless an explanation is provided. Smartyllama (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

1) Not a valid reason for deletion. The information might be found on seperate other pages, but a list page is made to have an overview. All the information of notable lists on Wikipedia can be found on other Wikipedia pages. Example UCI Track Cycling World Championships – Women's omnium.

2) The weightlifters lists by previous discussions: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weightlifters at the 2006 World Weightlifting Championships, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weightlifters at the 2007 World Weightlifting Championships, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weightlifters at the 2010 World Weightlifting Championships, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weightlifters at the 2011 World Weightlifting Championships, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weightlifters at the 2003 World Weightlifting Championships, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weightlifters at the 1998 World Weightlifting Championships, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weightlifters at the 1999 World Weightlifting Championships,

3) The cycling and Olympic lists all meet WP:LISTPEOPLE

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4 there is a difference. These are all inclusive across all years. The lists nominated for discussion are for one specific year. I am retroactively withdrawing two of the nominations: List of Turkish weightlifters and List of Dutch Olympic cyclists. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A list for all competitors at the 2016 Summer Olympics would be too long. A list of competitors at the different sports are great and valuable. There can be found for instance which cyclists participated at road and track events (see List of cyclists at the 2012 Summer Olympics). This kind of inforamtion is hardly to find somewhere else. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 20:26, 12 January 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 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 20:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the ones of the form list of x at the xxxx summer olympics. SvG's arguments on those are convincing, and they do add real value to wikipedia even if they are redundant. Weak Keep the UCI cyclist articles for the same reason, but they are less valuable to wikipedia. No opinion on the other nominated articles. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Double info, failure - as usual - to give independent sources The Banner talk 02:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most but keep the ones for the Olympics. Consensus is that these things are notable the Olympics, but not for single-sport events. Smartyllama (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – mass created spam articles, just like the other billion that have wasted peoples' time at AfD. Laurdecl ^talk 01:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of behavioral experiment software[edit]

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

Spam farm for a whole pile of redlinks. Only four articles exist in this WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, and do we need an article comparing three attributes of four apps? Wikishovel (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTGUIDE. And as per nominator only four list entries have articles. Ajf773 (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only four of those have links to Wikipedia articles, and I don't know if any of those four would pass notability themselves. Dream Focus 18:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is nothing but a promotional link farm, not an encyclopedic article. W Nowicki (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undue self-promotion. —PermStrump(talk) 00:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 13:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey L. Philips[edit]

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

Margaretver (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - and ban user as this is almost definitely a sock of Akinpelu1990. As far as the article criteria: this attorney is completely non-notable. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Delete - Articles lacks reliable sources Margaretver (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Estrella[edit]

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

This is a case of WP:TOOSOON she has had 1 role that has come to the screen and doesn't yet meet the criteria WP:NACTOR Domdeparis (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass any of the three criteria of WP:NACTOR. Ms. Estrella has not had significant roles multiple films, nor does she have a "cult" following, nor has she made any sort of innovative contribution to the field of acting. Additionally, the page in question is poorly written and comes across more as an promotional biographical piece than a non-biased wiki piece. Radix838 (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON, and the content of the article has all the hallmarks of COI promotional puffery rather than encyclopedic content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 role in 1 film is not enough, especially considering the size of her role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 11:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koya Tanio[edit]

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

One source is provided but no media coverage nor notability claim provided. DrStrauss talk 13:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Source listed in the article confirms he has played in a fully professional league, meaning the article meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 14:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - J3 is now fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. Can we close this already? Smartyllama (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 11:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masato Mizuki[edit]

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

One source is provided but no media coverage nor notability claim provided. DrStrauss talk 13:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Source listed in the article confirms he has played in a fully professional league, meaning the article meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 14:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - J3 is now fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep passes WP:NFOOTY. Can we close this now and stop wasting everybody's time? Smartyllama (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buniyad Ahmed[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability requirements per WP:ENT. Any possible sources mentioning his name are just that, mentions, when discussing the film Love ke funday .APK whisper in my ear 13:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously not notable. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, no ceoverage in reliable media. The author has COI which he has written in edit comments. Clear case of using wiki for personal promotion. ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD:A7 article about a band with no indication of notability. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Band The Tide[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, might be CSD-A7 or prod-blp Kleuske (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - non notable band. Flat Out (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Created by banned user, CU confirmed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edelweiss Broking Limited[edit]

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

Was redirected to parent company, as this subsidiary does not have enough independent notability for a standalone article. In addition, the article is currently nothing more than an advertisement. The article was created by a user with the name of the subsidiary, who was promptly blocked for violating the username policy. The redirect was then reverted by a new account which was created less than two hours after the first account was blocked. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:onel5969, I completely agree with you that this article was created with a username which is not allowed. It was my very first experience as a wiki writer.I felt a need to write about this entity.It has an office near my residence. I knew about it for a significant time but never knew how big this firm is. I recently came to know that it is a fast growing brand in India but I could not find it on wikipedia. So, I felt that this should be my very first article. But being a beginner I made a mistake of naming my username as the name of the company itself. It took a lot of time to gather all the information and write this article. After you told it is an advertisement, I looked at various financial services companies of India like Zerodha, Motilal Oswal Group, Angel Broking . Then, I realized that this article just have company information and history, not even any product detailing or awards etc. compared to other articles. I am a keen learner and will love to know what can I edit here.

Thanking you in anticipation. Piyushpanc (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to you on my talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete and Redirect as this is clear advertising only sourced by their own published and republished business announcements and there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else and there never has been here, the information and sources are all suggestive of PR, so that alone is enough to delete. There's never a defense when it's even clear paid press is being as sources, which says enough. To add, I even looked at the history and the article author is the company account in which then this other account is now contributing hence all confirming an advertised campaign. Even if there was double or triple the amount of "news", that wouldn't excuse the clear advertisement of them. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:SwisterTwister , Thanks for highlighting the notability issue. I have reverted to User:onel5969 as below : Here I am presenting few URLs which you can review for notability. http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=128483696 https://www.bloomberg.com/profiles/companies/0285631D:IN-edelweiss-broking-ltd , http://www.vccircle.com/bizcircle/company/company_details/Edelweiss_Broking_Ltd.--81462 , http://forbesindia.com/article/boardroom/how-edelweiss-built-a-business-for-the-long-run/39907/1 , http://www.sebi.gov.in/sebiweb/home/pmd_mb.jsp?PmdIndxName=Edelweiss&listCode=C , Bloomberg is the top website in finance sector. VCC Circle is independent news website. SEBI is the Indian Government Exchange Regulatory Body. Kindly suggest if it is still not sufficient. Also, I have already mentioned above that this has nothing to do with PR activity as whatever I know about company that only I have written, nothing like products or awards or press releases or revenue etc. Whatever I posted, the information I got on google and put here for citation. I think it's the company's problem if they are not having much differentiation in URLs. I can write a mail to their customer service if you suggest so. For company name as author, I have given explanation here. User_talk:Edelweiss_Broking_Limited Kindly have a look.

kindly suggest if you still feel I am wrong. I would love to learn from you and follow in my future editings. Thanking you in anticipation. Piyushpanc (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and patience

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep or Redirect Merge with Parent company is the only option here. This company is definitely notable. Light2021 (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Light2021 for noticing it. I tried to write as neutral as possible. Kindly suggest why should we not keep it as it is instead of redirecting? I will love to learn and improve.

Thanks Piyushpanc (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the notability part Piyushpanc . There has to be significant content for encyclopedic standards for each to write independent article for each. in this case One would suffice. Light2021 (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vybe[edit]

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

Despite an extensive search I could not find enough significant reliable coverage for this music producer. Most of what I could find were forum posts or passing mentions in unreliable sources. As an aside, the lone online article I could find about him is not exactly a positive one. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I can find mentions in unreliable sources and that's really pretty much it for coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The article has been fully updated including realibe sources dating back to 2010, mentioned by MTV news,as well as mentioned in [6] Bilboard.com Realisreal25 (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Mentions do not represent significant coverage. As for the added sources, Wikipedia, and Twitter are not reliable sources. And a couple of interviews do not establish notability, nor is it at all clear that the web sites can be considered reliable sources. The SNTmag interview has no byline, and the lead paragraph is cribbed directly from this same Vybe article without attribution. Crazypellas also seems to be a site designed for artists and DJs promotion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a couple of interviews on websites that are barely above the level of a blog; certainly no coverage in anything that could be considered a reliable source. The mentions that are discussed in the "keep" vote (by the article's creator) are just that - quick mentions. Non-notable artist. Not even close. Rockypedia (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article in question is linked to significant articles / pages that already exist, the musician clearly has done work either with or for other musicians including producing a song for a major label interscope records artist (At the time) whom may seem significant enough to have an wiki page aswell, and there are far worst pages on wiki that i can link that have 0 sources at all either they're from their on website's bio or else where, that are still up on Wikipedia with no question on its notability. Realisreal25 (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that there are plenty of articles about bands on wikipedia that have less sources is not a justification for keeping this one. The goal is to remove them all---an improbable task, for sure--but there are only so many editors and hours in a day. When you come across an article you feel is not worthy of notability feel free to nominate it. That's why AfD exists. ShelbyMarion (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Realisreal25 (talk), see WP:INHERITORG on why notability is not inherited. If an artist worked with another artist that is notable, that does not automatically make them notable. To your second point, could you provide some examples of "far worst(sic) pages on wiki that i can link that have 0 sources at all"? I'd like to begin the process of deleting those as well. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails per references criteria. The only decent reference is Billboard, but the linked article wants to make the flawed argument that the subject—who is not even mentioned—is notable by association. Crazy Phellas and SNT Magazines are sites that solicit user submitted articles from artist wishing to promote themselves. The rest are social media. ShelbyMarion (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reflective Music[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable record label; an extensive search failed to find enough significant reliable coverage for either the label or any of its artists (none of whom have a Wikipedia article). All I could find were non-independent sites such as artist websites or the label's site itself. Even with more specific searches most of what I could find were false positives. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on balance. Looks promotional to me. Deb (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could find nothing notable on the artists on his "clientele roster" none of whom have their pages (not a criteria for notability but if no one has deemed and/or proved that they are notable it is unlikely that their management firm is very notable...) Domdeparis (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of foods that sweat[edit]

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

Non notable list and seems to be more of a joke than anything else as toast does not sweat but the water vapour molecules in the hot toast condense on the cold plate, and cheese loses it moisture because of the osmosis created by the salt content. i tagged as a hoax but this was refused as was the PROD because "sweating food is a common term" ...the mind boggles... Domdeparis (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – ridiculous reason for AfD. See WP:COMMONAME and Sweating (cooking). Laurdecl ^talk 09:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Ignore above, I thought this was nominated because of "sweat" not being the correct term (as opposed to "foods that condense" or whatever). I added a short paragraph about the foods "sweating" in their relevant articles. Laurdecl ^talk 02:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I explained on your talk page Sweating (cooking) is a technique for preparing food and not the loss of moisture from food which is the topic of the article. Most food will lose moisture at one point or another by different mechanisms, evaporation, osmosis etc but none of this is "sweating". To describe food as sweating is just the use of a term that describes the production of fluids secreted by the sweat glands in the skin of mammals for the loss of moisture because the person doesn't know how to describe the mechanism. It would be just as logical to have a list of animals or objects that "speak" because certain people do not have a rich enough vocabulary to describe correctly the noise they hear. As almost all food loses moisture at one point or another it is possible to observe this phenomena and then say that the food is sweating and in that case the list would include en infinite number of foods...--Domdeparis (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the creation is well-intentioned I think this is taking 2 sources that use the common word "sweat" and making it into "a thing", that is "foods that sweat". This is like creating your own neologism, but the sources do not support such a thing, sorry. ValarianB (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be largely synthesis, as the article creator seems to have taken information from two different (and both seemingly unreliable) sources about two completely different processes that both just happened to use the term "sweat" to describe the wet look, and decided that this was some sort of official catch-all terminology for "food that looks wet", which it is not. As already mentioned, this has nothing to do with the actual cooking term "sweating", which is a manner of preparation and has absolutely nothing to do with this article's made-up topic. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please. This is not encyclopedic, not notable, not sourced reliably, etc. Two random articles use the term "sweat" to describe two completely different phenomena, and a pattern is revealed? No. Glendoremus (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find no evidence that "food that sweats" (as contrasted with the culinary technique of sweating (cooking)) is treated as a coherent topic in reliable sources. Thus, not a suitable subject for a list under Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOR. Non notable topic regardless. Ajf773 (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR; utterly trivial and non-notable. As regulars at Afd know, it takes a lot for me to say that about a list -- but this is not encyclopedic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per everyone above Spiderone 13:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American coaches of foreign national soccer teams[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator. Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTCRUFT. Adequately covered by Category:American expatriate soccer coaches, does not merit a separate list article with half-a-dozen entries and only routine coverage. Giant Snowman 08:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:LISTN, no indication that the notion of American coaches managing non-american teams has garnered anywhere near the level of coverage required to justify a standalone list. Fenix down (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is mostly prose, so LISTN does not provide a reasonable basis for deletion. And the references were admittedly thin a week ago, but they have been improved since then and this is now a well-sourced article. Barryjjoyce (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails LISTN Spiderone 22:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully submit that this WP:VAGUEWAVE ought to be given no weight, as it does not explain why guidance that pertains to lists provides a reasonable basis to delete a well-sourced article that consists mostly of prose. Barryjjoyce (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There is significant coverage of Sampson's and Bradley's exploits as American coaches of foreign national teams, and the concept has attracted interest (evidenced by the coverage of Dooley's exploits with the Philippines' team). However, I'm not sure there are enough notable entries to justify a stand-alone list and the inclusion criteria ought to be tightened. I'm dubious that Panagoulias was viewed as an American coaching Greece (I realize the cited article says so, but the Chicago Tribune is unlikely to be the best source for such information). While Dooley was a US citizen and played in the US league and for the US national team, he was born in West Germany, so there ought to be some criteria explaining why he qualifies. Jogurney (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jogurney: - that's notable coverage about Sampson and Bradley - not about this as a topic. Giant Snowman 07:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I did a quick search and agree that most of the coverage is specific to a person (e.g., Sampson or Bradley), but on occasion there are sources that touch on the issue of American coaches working for foreign national teams or clubs. This book spends a page or two on the issue (written in 2010, it pre-dated Bradley's appointment to coach Egypt). I'm still at weak keep, but I think the focus of the article (or list) should change to American coaches of foreign national teams or clubs (since the two are intertwined in the coverage). Jogurney (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Responding to the various concerns raised above:
- GNG / Sufficiency of Coverage — GNG requires multiple sources. The article in its current format has cites from more than 10 independent reliable sources. Several of the sources explicitly discuss these coaches as a group or set (eg, the Soccer America article). Surely that is enough. If not enough, how many would you like to see? I can add more.
- LISTN / ListCruft / Category — This article is not a list. It is a combination of both prose and a table. I can add more prose if you want. How much would you like to see? Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Barryjjoyce: - no, GNG requires significant coverage, which we don't have. Giant Snowman 07:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman — The significant coverage requirement of WP:GNG states that the sources must provide more than a trivial mention and provide enough material so that no original research is needed. This article would fail the test if the sources were, eg, discussing the national teams with only a passing mention of the coaches names and not mentioning the coaches nationality. Here, we have sources that discuss the coaches — sometimes individually, sometimes in the context of other American coaches who are at the helm of other national teams. Many of these articles are about the coach himself, the foreign team he coaches, and his American nationality.

If you disagree, please explain further your view as to (1) why this article does not meet the significant coverage test, and (2) what sources would need to exist to satisfy the test. The more specific and detailed you can be, the better it will help me understand your position. Barryjjoyce (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the coverage isn't about the topic/phenomenon of 'American coaches of foreign national soccer teams', it's about some Americans who have been coaches of foreign national soccer teams. That's a key difference. Giant Snowman 09:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman — I'm not sure I understand the "key difference" you assert between American coaches of foreign national teams vs Americans who have coached foreign national teams. Perhaps you could re-read the first paragraph of the article and the sources and explain what you think those articles are about, if something other than American coaches of foreign national teams.

In any case, I'm assuming your original views re LISTN, LISTCRUFT and Categories are now moot, but thought I would check with you to be sure. Are you still claiming some or all of these three reasons are valid reasons for deleting this article? If so, which ones, and please explain your views further so I can assess. Thanks. Barryjjoyce (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about 'American coaches of foreign national soccer teams', but there is no significant coverage about 'American coaches of foreign national soccer teams'. There is some coverage about the individuals (which makes them notable), but not about the over-arching topic alone. Giant Snowman 16:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman — Your point re requiring articles about "the over-arching topic alone" seems at odds with WP:SIGCOV, which states that the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Do you have a wiki policy or guideline you can quote and link to that supports your position? And how about my question above re your earlier statements on LISTN, LISTCRUFT and Categories: What is your current position on that? Barryjjoyce (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the titles of various articles make clear that the articles are focusing on the American nationality of the coach. For example, * "Bradley's job a boost for U.S. credibility" * "Dooley seventh American to coach foreign national team" * "American Ian Mork to coach Belize against his home country" * "From Queens to Kathmandu: a New Yorker's two-year stint as Nepal's coach". Barryjjoyce (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — There are very few American coaches in the MLS alone, let alone the coach of the national team of other countries. Bradley's reign as Egyptian coach garnered much coverage during the time, and Dooley's tenure in the Philippines has also gained some attention. I haven't really looked into the other ones, but by and large being an expat American coach in football/soccer seems to draw the press, and thus should be considered notable in my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro: - that's notable coverage about Sampson and Bradley - not about this as a topic. 07:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there coverage had a lot to do with the fact that they were American. Also your views on this article are somewhat ironic given the fact that you voted "keep" on this discussion. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Kall[edit]

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

Unfortunately, all the references are either one-line mentions or listings. There is no in-depth, non-trivial support for the individual reddogsix (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of passing mentions that don't add up to anything significant. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not a resume hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the Kentucky article about Georgie Boy! is more than passing, but I'd like to see more of that. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onfido[edit]

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

No indications of notability, except that one if its founders was once included in one of Forbes' countless lists of people. Not sure there is point in keeping the article. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the company is not yet notable per available source. The article & available sources are solely about "foundation story"; funding; "Accolades" and company aspirations. Fairly typical "This-tech-startup-is-the-next-great-thing" content with no value to the general reader just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SUSTAINED. WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG aren't enough for a new company, because the start of a company is an ephemeral event. Wikipedia can wait to see if this startup succeeds. Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG and certainly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Various sources are quotes and interviews (therefore fail WP:RS) and PR pieces. Probably WP:TOOSOON. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TransferMate[edit]

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

This one is too promotional, in my opinion, but I'm leaving it up to a broader discussion. Orange Mike | Talk 23:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mike Can you be more specific? Maybe I could change it so it doesn't sound that promotional. My opinion is that it doesn't sound that promotional, after all the statements in this article are from trusted sources like The Sunday Business Post, FinExtra, Business and Finance, IrishTech news and so on...not mine. Is the 'Media Attention' section that worries you? Or something else? I've seen some other brand pages in wikipedia in this sector using very similar article structure, so I though it'll be better not to experiment and do it the way other big brand pages are done, especially when it comes to my first article. Appreciate all contribution to WikiPedia and if you decide to delete my article, I'd be glad to see more specific reasons and why not advises for writing style. I am a beginner, but definitely not a spammer or related to any company.--Anstoyanov (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated use of words like "easily", "with ease", "successfully", and the ever-repulsive "solution" reek of promotion and peacockery. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Orange Mike, I agree with you and have made some changes. --Anstoyanov (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam with tell-tale section of "Media Attention". An unremarkable business going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman I can see many other articles about companies using 'media attention' section used the same way - TransferWise, Currencyfair and more. Still I have changed it to Awards and have listed only the awards there. Is that the only reason you wish to delete this page? --Anstoyanov (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep though could still use some trimming (I did a pass at the stuff that appear obvious to me). A number of the sources are good, and the organization did receive some rewards from its industry groups: so meets minimum threshold for notability, but could use some more context from sources that do a little bit more investigative work, when reporting. Sadads (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as WP:CORP and WP:SIGCOV seems to be demonstrated and verifiable (Google news search returns a reasonable amount of non-trivial coverage). That said, as noted by the nominator and other editors, at the time of nom this article was appallingly promotional in tone - something that needs addressing and monitoring (if kept). Guliolopez (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as policy WP:NOT applies here since the sourcing is simply published and republished PR, regardless whoever published it and therefore we have no genuine substance. SwisterTwister talk 00:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The promotional tone has been improved - what about the sources? Please bring up specific examples. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Dahl[edit]

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

Fails GNG - Inherited Notability from grandparents. The information in this stub could be added to the articles of her grandparents (if reliably sourced). Does not merit an individual Wikipedia entry. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve Wading through the torrent of tabloid gossip online about her personal life and family (try searching on "Phoebe Dahl" -ruby), she does have reasonable coverage in WP:RS as a fashion designer and activist, e.g. [7], [8], [9], etc. Wikishovel (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability requirements for fashion designers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's an evident WP:COI for the two WP:SPAs who created the article. They've both been busy today adding marketing crap to the article, and repeatedly removing maintenance templates. User:feebeegeebee123 might well be the subject of the article. I think she meets WP:BASIC as I noted above, and have tried to improve the article a bit, but no good deed goes unpunished it seems. Wikishovel (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Confirmed Sockpuppets - See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SaraV

*Keep and improve* Notability for her achievements. The information in this stub can not be added to the articles of her grandparents for having enough personal references and been linked from other pages. feebeegeebee123 (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC) — feebeegeebee123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep it does have enough notability to be listed as a fashion designer and articles online suggest it is a known name for the public.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate562 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC) ::— Kate562 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ https://thefifthsense.i-d.co/en_us/article/meet-phoebe-dahl-the-one-woman-fashion-protagonist-whos-going-to-change-the-world/

Collapsed and struck !votes from confirmed sockpuppets of Article's creator. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the subject is probably notable, per the sources identified above and some of the others found by a Google News search amongst all of the tabloid tittle-tattle, but, in sympathy with Wikishovel's final words above, I'm buggered if I'm going to help with this when there are people trying to make it into an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. Those editors who are trying to do that would be well-advised to simply stop and let someone else write this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Khalid[edit]

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

Businessman. Not a single reference speaks about the man. Instead they are all in-context business speak made up of case studies and trade papers. Possible puff piece. Fails WP:BIO. No real sources for BLP article. scope_creep (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While a lot of it is fluff - there does seem to be a couple of genuine articles on him - for instance this one - http://www.thenational.ae/business/personal-finance/money--me-dubai-digital-agency-chief-was-a-millionaire-at-24 Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as clear advertising and something our policies won't accept, regardless of whatever or whoever, and it's clear; to note, the source above is still trivial and unconvincing and is not beneficially weighing any better for the article and what it needs at all. This is best suited for his own job listing and not using as LinkedIn. SwisterTwister talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Deathlibrarian. I don't think that is notable, being a millionaire at 24. That is work, or his parents. You can't say it the creative act, like making a film, writing a novel, or building 3000 libraries like Carnegie to increase and disseminate knowledge. It merely is and I think it is not notable. scope_creep (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not a resume hosting service; no indications as to why this should be in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pavement Coffeehouse[edit]

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

All sources appear to be short reviews or blurbs. Not significant coverage. CapitalSasha ~ talk 07:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep well-known chain in the Boston area; I added one story from the Globe about the chain opening its most recent store. Leaning towards Keep. GlassCobra 18:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The top four hits on Google Books are: The Unsustained Darkness, Fodor's Boston, The Rough Guide to New England, Lonely Planet Boston. These are not consistent with, "All sources appear to be short reviews or blurbs." Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should have said "all sources cited in the article." However, the last three sources you note are indeed short reviews, and the first is a passing mention in a work of fiction. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising followed by local news stories and business announcements, that only shows this is a business listing in which our policies are violated. SwisterTwister talk 18:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable local business and spammy content. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are of the form "top 50 coffee house in....". These are not useful for notability for WP:CORPDEPTH. If it was indeed notable, I would expect at least some more coverage, rather than inclusion in a list. The book sources are not good enough either - brief references in the context of something else. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pataki full[edit]

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

cannot find coverage in independent reliable sources CapitalSasha ~ talk 07:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:GNG and finding no evidence of WP:BOOKCRIT being met. Source searches are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [10], [11]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. What a mess. There would be nothing left if one took out all the unsourced comments. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agapiméno Mou Gardoúmpi[edit]

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

Seemingly unremarkable addition, no charts. The artist doesn't even have an article. Jennica✿ / ^talk 23:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - There *was* an article on the artist himself ("Dispero Ras Siento"), but this was deleted following an AfD discussion on the grounds of insufficiently-demonstrated notability. I had planned on letting that run its course before nominating any associated articles (e.g. this one), which has now happened.

I would support delete here for exactly the same reasons- no clear independent demonstration of notability. There are plenty of "sources", but as per the artist article discussion, it's not clear who wrote and/or supplied the content in those sources originally- i.e. not clearly independent or reliable- were they created by an independent writer or someone associated with the artist? Also, this article appears to be copied at least in part from them (e.g. "the video clip which was included had the title" originally appears at the cited Last.FM article).

We should also be considering other articles associated with the artist on the same grounds. Ubcule (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teale Coco[edit]

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

Another user attempted to nominate this for deletion but didn't do it it properly. This page clearly fails WP:GNG. Multiple WP:SPA trying to keep the page alive with spam links. Likely WP:SOCKS. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE the below text was moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teale Coco (2nd nomination) which was opened by mistake....

Delete - Can not find any notability other than advertorials placed by single purpose accounts by user:Sspsspsspssp , user:Bite-power and user:Highpriestess369 all which have apparently (I think COI's), especially the latter who is apparently (I believe) the subject herself who dosen't declare any COI but is currently trying to upload images to Wikimedia Commons and asking (there) why are they getting deleated. Due to the lack of notability, this is article is for self promotion only. Suggest deletion as to not encourage WP to become another linkin which we have to check and waist time on looking for reliable references only to find non.--Aspro (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello! i have no association with these accounts, i am merely trying to change information to correct information about myself and upload my OWN image. as someone had written my wrong measurements (height). (Confirmed sock of creator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highpriestess369 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Highpriestess369 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~i have now uploaded a tweet to prove that i am infact the person at question and I can verify my email address to also prove so. sorry, i am new to wikipedia thanks!~~ (Confirmed sock of creator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highpriestess369 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Highpriestess369 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Teale has a large following of people with creditable sources and is consider a "Notability (people)" by wikipedia terms. fans are likely to make profiles to add to the page for purely this purpose. there is entries and edits from numerous others contributing to this page. wikipedia defines a notable person as: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." with over 22 links of creditable sourced articles and examples of her work i see not how there is no "notability" to her. wikipedia also states: "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." which she is considered by many sources. (Confirmed sock of creator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmtreebandit (talk • contribs) 03:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Palmtreebandit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Article reads like a resume - definitely promotional, but that alone is not grounds for deletion - it can be rewritten. Having fans is not grounds for deletion. Independent secondary sources are very few, and none in the main stream media that I can easily find. Looks like potential article material, but TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in my long experience in WP, single purpose editors have a definite conflict of interest. The sources are not convincing as they merely verify she held roles. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Highpriestess369 and Palmtreebandit are Confirmed sock puppets of Sspsspsspssp. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sspsspsspssp.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep and improve ~~though I'm open to persuasion on a delete.~~ Subject has significant coverage cited from at least three WP:RS: Vogue (magazine), i-D and W (magazine), so the article passes WP:BASIC. Now that the sockpuppets have been blocked, maybe my efforts at cleanup and WP:NPOV will stop getting repeatedly overwritten with self-promotional crap. Wikishovel (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let us draw a line under this and just delete. This individual may one-day become notable. She appears to have avant-garde attitude which I admire but as of this date is not notable in an encyclopedic sense. If she goes on, to rise above the thousands of others (that also have mentions in fashion magazine), and becomes notable - we will create and article for her! In the mean time, we are having to examining her and her sock puppet edits, which is thus wasting editors time on a just anther hopeful wannabe who creates articles about themselves. Delete for now and let time and 'proven' talent sort it out .--Aspro (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about maintenance, but even so, that's not a valid reason for deletion per policy. We have lots of articles that are sockpuppetry warzones, but there are remedies for that, including page protection where necessary. The three WP:RS cites I noted above aren't passing mentions - they're substantial articles about her, in well-known national fashion magazines. Wouldn't you agree that the article already meets WP:BASIC? Wikishovel (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I spotted the Vogue article too and it and a couple of others moved me to my weak above. I might be persuaded to to a weak keep. I actually found the potential in the article interesting, but it needs a lot of work, and some NPOV, no COI, etc., but I am sticking with a weak delete at this time. Aoziwe (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment: @ Wikishovel ”not a valid reason for deletion per policy.” With Coco's persistences, tenacity and dedication to building her own image, shows that she, may, one-day, will not have to mange her own article but will have it all done for her by other editors and not herself, because she has become worthy of her own encyclopedic entry. Yet, WP is not a crystal ball. Currently however, her activities are draining free WP & WC resources to promote herself. Example: [12] She exhibits a charm of using WP & WC editors free time to promote herself – to the detriment of other encyclopedia articles we 'could' be working on. Why should WP need a policy for common sense.--Aspro (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia runs on policy, and because we do have policy on notability,and because everybody's got their own take on what "common sense" might mean? You still haven't explained how she fails WP:BASIC. Wikishovel (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Wikishovel. Not getting at you because I can see and appreciate where you are coming from, along with other editors.

Yet, this is now getting so fishy that it smells as such:

User:Highpriestess369 & User: Highpriestess369 on WC

User:Sspsspsspssp & [13] on WC

User:Bitepower

As you know, Vogue is a magazine that needs something in every issue to print. It is cheaper to feature wannabes (and they feature lots) -are you suggesting that everyone that is featured is entitlement to a WP article?

As Janelle Okwodu of Vogue says: “As a trained photographer—she was scouted a year into her photography degree” ... err,... so why is Coco uploading such poor images? I admire Coco for her avant-garde stance but this stinks of amateurism by a non notable with no RS yet. Every which way you look at it, she is taking advantage of WP editors to enhance her career without giving anything back -other than an article about herself. Whose the fool? People who have grandchildren know the answer to this. They have see advantage taking – twice over. Just 'delete' until real notability arises.--Aspro (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given a single policy reason for deletion. You have refused to explain how she fails WP:BASIC, talking instead about "drawing a line", "common sense", the wisdom of grandparents, and previous abuses by blocked sockpuppets. None of these are valid reasons for deletion. Wikishovel (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least 3 in-depth decent sources is enough to meet WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't agree that the references meet WP:GNG. As is said above, I hope that one day she becomes notable enough for a WP article but as of present these reference do nothing to raise her head above her contemporaries. Wikipedia:GNG#Self-promotion_and_publicity also states that “Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability”. So far, we only have her self promotional edits by herself and apparent socks (which have all been blocked including the creator of this article) to go on. At the end of the day it is 'talent,' not her Wikipedia article that is going to bring recognition and notability.--Aspro (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:PROMO article on a subject not yet notable. WP:TOOSOON also applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No promotional problems have been identified, see WP:PROMO. Unscintillating (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked at the Vogue article. This topic meets our GNG requirements, and quite a bit more given that the coverage is international. Unscintillating (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and, I meant to comment sooner, the WP:GNG is simply a suggestive guideline as the first paragraph says, and it's not a serious policy (and quite likely never will be, based from our policy standards); WP:NOT applies here because this page mirrors the specific WP:Wikipedia is not Facebook, since it in fact cares to cite the subject's own websites, profiles, announcements, quotes and similar, thus not satisfying even our simplest GNG standards since that itself says "Sources must be significant, independent, substantial and not inherited". The clear sockpuppet SPAs here enhance the fact WP:NOT applies, since the comments then are both not acknowledging our own policies but then even saying "Because there's sources", which is not a policy. As above shows, WP:PROMO in fact is policy also, specifically next to the part "Wikipedia is not a webhost, Facebook or similar". As we know, when such sourcing only cites self-published listings, it shows there's simply nothing else to advertise. SwisterTwister talk 23:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Alemika[edit]

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

Dos not meet the criteria for ~~WP:NPROF~~ WP:PROF and does not meet the GNG criteria. The only substantiated claim being the first female la professor from a particular state in Nigeria. The claim that she is a philanthropist are not backed up by the sources. The sources include 1 puff piece in a Nigerian magazine and 1 interview written in a Nigerien newspaper rewritten in a blog which was then copied word for word into another newspaper. And 1 source solely about her husband. Domdeparis (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As it stands, it's highly promotional. I'm not sure how significant being a female "professor" (I'm assuming the American meaning) is in the context of Nigeria. Deb (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is not a non-profit organization, she is a person. NPROF is an essay, not policy. If you were meaning PROF, there are no claims in the article that she meets ACADEMIC. I have no stake in the article, simply ran across a poorly written, article and tried to improve it. Never even looked at the lede, which rather than nominate it for deletion is easily corrected by an edit. I am in Mexico and as a general rule have *very* limited sources to Africa. However, I can see that she has been a speaker at numerous global conferences Uganda, Washington, D.C., The Netherlands, Chile, so clearly her impact is not just regional. All of the topics she has presented at these various conferences are on the rights of women and children. As there is evidence that she has participated in the global discussion of human rights, perhaps the article should be given time to develop. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My bad concerning the NPORF it should have been PROF. The article presents the subject as an academic and not as a human rights activist/speaker. The article states that she is an educator and talks about her being the first professor of law from a certain region. I may be being a little dense but for me educator is a synonym for teacher or academic teacher and as such, if this is the main claim to notability, she should meet ACADEMIC. The fact that she has participated in conference suggests that she has notability but there is no in-depth coverage of these activities. The article needs to be rewritten to highlight her work as a human right's speaker with in depth coverage. IMHO as it stands it is a candidate for deletion. Domdeparis (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So then rewrite it, look for sourcing, etc. You state that there is no in-depth coverage, I am unwilling to go that far. There is evidence that she has participated globally. It may well be that there is coverage, I simply do not have access due to my location. Deletion does not improve the encyclopedia, simply diminishes the coverage and does not allow someone who might have access to sourcing to improve the article. As for limiting her life to one facet of it, i.e. Academic, it denies the fact that her impact is not necessarily as a scholar. I see no evidence of academic notability, but there are many clues that she is a speaker and mentor. SusunW (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not a subject that interests me particularly and even if strangely in Mexico it is difficult to access on line sources about Africa I probably have no more access than you do. As it says in the WP:New Pages Patrol New Page Reviews should not feel obligated to mentor new users or complete their articles. I have rewritten, translated and added references to pages that I have reviewed and/or tagged because the subject interests me. I originally tagged this page with a notability tag which another editor removed but as the article had not been modified and I maintain that as written the article does not present the person as being particularly notable and the sources that you have supplied are not in-depth coverage of her work as a human rights activist as per the categorisation that you added. Domdeparis (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse that. The wording is promotional and it comes very close to a G11. Deb (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no pass of WP:Prof. Can notability be found in WP:GNG? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of women in the 112th Congress[edit]

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

Pretty much useless WP:LISTCRUFT and arguably sexist, there is nothing significant about the number of women in a certain congress 112th United States Congress already has it covered, I just don't see a justification for such a list. This is not encyclopedic material, unlike Women in the United States Senate, for example. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unnecessary duplication of more comprehensive lists in Women in the United States House of Representatives and Women in the United States Senate --Closeapple (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

V Chart Awards[edit]

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

Seems to lack coverage in reliable sources. CapitalSasha ~ talk 07:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking in sources and indication of notability. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sherilyn Reyes-Tan[edit]

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

Originally prodded due to lack of citations and notability. Citations have since been added, but still not enough to meet notability standards. Was deprodded with the following rationale: "remove PROD, while the original author has not contested the deletion, I take it that they think the article is worth saving with the amount of work they put in since the PROD, also part of the PROD reason is now inaccurate." Only a single reference is from a RS, and that one is from 10 years ago. Searches did not turn up enough to show she passes WP:GNG, a few trivial mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found some articles about her on Philippine entertainment websites such as PEP. Do those count as reliable sources or at the very least significant coverage? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a complete copy of this article at Draft:Sherilyn Reyes-Tan (actress) that needs to be addressed when this is closed. - GB fan 00:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Famousbirthdays.com, the only English reference, use prominently throughout the article, is not are reliable source (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). --Ronz (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intellect Design[edit]

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

Clear advertising that was maneuvered and conceived by the company itself as it's clear this is only something they would so blatantly care to advertise about themselves, and it shows since the listed websites are clearly republished PR and there are all the signs of it, and it's worse when searches found others, including ones that explicitly state it was PR, so it's such blatancy, we can't possibly mistake it as "likely coverage". Next, we've established policies about this and how advertising is removed, with a long following of such deletions, it's clear this was only ever started for advertising and it also shows since it's part of a considerably large user-led advertising campaign. As it is, comparing the history shows either tag-teaming employees or the same person using multiple accounts, both of which emulate advertising. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- purely corporate spam on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of media coverage. Significant Revenue and known company. Article writing can be improved. Light2021 (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy is involved here though? Because the sources as examined are in fact clear business PR announcements and stories. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its a public listed well known company beyond any doubts. You can change content or quality of writing in an article. But in my opinion or in my analysis I have found this company as worth keeping. If you come up with more analysis, I will change my vote. Light2021 (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:ORG with plenty of coverage in reliable sources. A quick search brings up even more coverage than what's in the article. Stickee (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is a guideline, not a policy, so which policies states that instant sourcing means acceptance? Because the sources I see here are clear published and republished business PR. SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quite a lot of coverage from multiple media outlets, passes WP:NCOMP—UY Scuti ^Talk 16:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer -The comments above are not policy based as they simply say "there's sources" but actually examining the above shows nothing but clear published and republished business announcements, including some that are clear paid press (the publications have a notorious history of accepting paid press covertly as it is) thus WP:NOT still applies. As it is, the first ones have a clear "The company's spokesman tells us", "The company's website informed us", etc (this not even satisfying guideline WP:CORPDEPTH). Actually, now looking at the link closely, I see there's no mention of this company there at all, and it's about an actress instead, "Koushani Mukherjee". SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional, and of very dubious notability. The references are notices, or press releases, none of them independent substantial reporting and useless to show notability; their unreliability is shown by the degree they copy each other, all based upon the same press releases:

1 The Economic Times., is essentially a quote from the managing director

2 indiainfoline.com is almost entirely a considerably longer quote for the MD.

3 bsintelligence.com is a mere notice that one (minor) bank bought their product

4 Hubbis is a potted bio of the MD from a "Wealth Management Forum", and not even a honest one, because it claims world-wide importance, which is not attested by any other reference

5 bobsguide is a PR notice that they are a partner of a notable firm

6 is a self-admitted "verbatim transcript" of an interview where one of their sales executives, who made whatever statements he pleased--another piece of PR, just what a sales manager would have written on a company web page

7 ChennaiPatrika is a PR, and just an announcement of annual results.

8 another Economic Times article, isn't even primarily about them " "Why companies like Intellect Design Arena " though they

9 is placement on a list, as is 12.

10. is a general article which mentions them in part of one sentence

11 is a broker's report on the company; so is 13.

14 is a PR from Business Wire which is not a true news service but a mechanism for distributing press releases. To include it shows the contributor either doesn't realize that or doesn't care.

So there is no substantial information about them that has any real source other than the company, which therefore fails the GNG.

The promotional nature of the coverage is also seen by listing all the higher executives, all of whom call themselves CEOs. The company is small by international standards, only $129 million capital. It is to be sure a public company, traded on the Indian stock Exchange, which is not a major exchange that guarantees coverage here, like the lSE. The editor claiming a lot of additional sources should look at them, the search they made is on Koushani Mukherjee, who is not even an executive of the company; I do not know why they thought it relevant. DGG ( talk ) 10:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Nikkor. T. Canens (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikon Nikkor 85mm f/2[edit]

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

I redirected this article to Nikkor based on WP:PRODUCT. However this redirection was reverted. So I'm taking it here to get consensus on what to do. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the page because as you can read at the deletion policy: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". Well, what about editing the page if you don't like it? (Sandroamt)

More, I know that the page is a product but it is an old product that reached his end of life in stores and I think vintage lenses have some interest and cannot be regarded as "normal product" (Sandroamt)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to justify notability beyond minor product review and auction listings. No indication this lens is significant to the photography field in any way other 85mm lenses. Most of article text is unpacking lens. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what about deleting almost all the lenses you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nikon_F-mount_lenses ? --Sandroamt (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect Nothing demonstrates notability for this lens. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my Delete !vote and replaced with Redirect - Nikkor is the obvious target. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of talking to lazy people that instead of improving an article (definitely improvable) prefer to delete it. I lost already too much time and I don't have anymore time to fight for free with destructive people. Feel free to make of it what you want, but I think that you are not doing a good job for the wikipedia community (remember: to destroy you need a simple click, but to build you need more time). --Sandroamt (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Softly. T. Canens (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COSMOS 1161898[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NASTRO. No references, no claims to notability. Simbad shows a grand total of two papers mentioning this object, both as part of a very large list. I could find no specific publications about this galaxy. Lithopsian (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Softly. T. Canens (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COSMOS 2607238[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NASTRO. No references, no claims to notability. Simbad shows a grand total of three papers mentioning this object, and only as part of a very large list. I could find no specific publications about this galaxy. Lithopsian (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fabiano (fantasy analyst)[edit]

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

Promotional. Largely unreferenced. Rathfelder (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is an unusual profession, but he does not meet the relevant guidelines at WP:JOURNALIST/WP:AUTHOR. He is very prolific and he also wrote a lot which was featured in various media, however the problem is, while there is a lot written by him, there is nothing about him as person; coverage which deals with him in depth, as subject of the article. This way he fails WP:GNG. We cant make an article for every prolific journalist/writer just because his name is getting mentioned in various places. Currently I therefore think the article should be deleted, due a lack of credible RS to satisfy WP:GNG. On a side note, this article was also probably created by himself, as indicated by the username of the creator which bears his name and NFL association. Dead Mary (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Softly. T. Canens (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Circle (supergroup)[edit]

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

Entirely unreferenced after six months, surprised it made it past a Speedy Deletion. Marginally notable hip hop group, seems to rely on the inherited notability of 2/3 of its members - the third, appropriately named Wiki, is just a redirect to another group he is a member of. Nothing they have produced is seemingly notable yet. Not at all comparable to a Run the Jewels or Czarface collabaration, this info could easily just be put as a section on the Antwon and Lil Ugly Mane pages, until something notable is done. JesseRafe (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hunted (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable EP (incorrectly titled as an album). Any useful information is better served in the band's article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS, only sources being band's website, lyrics sites, YouTube, etc. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Overland Transportation[edit]

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

Article about a small school bus contractor that operated in a single US state. I cannot find any secondary sources about this company. Majority of the article is unreferenced; the few sources provided talk about other companies, etc. The article was created and written by User:Vaoverland, who, as he personally said, helped found the company. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC) — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nördic Nightfury 08:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Blatant promotional and highly misleading article the way it is written. From content to photograph. Nothing significant has been achieved by this company till date. Its old does not make it Wiki significant. There are thousands of companies 50 years old or some local business. It does not signify anything related to Encyclopedic credibility. Light2021 (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cliffton Hall[edit]

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

Not a notable actor. He only has two Broadway credits, both of which were replacements of ensemble/undertstudy. His touring credits are also just replacements of ensemble and understudy. The closest thing he has to a notable role is being a replacement for Fiyero in the tour of Wicked. Additionally, the article only has one source. JDDJS (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG Siuenti (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DON'T DELETE!!!! I'LL BE SAD IF YOU DELETE THIS PAGE. - C.H. :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.246.143 (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Schmid[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:NACTOR. Actor has appeared as a single-episode guest in a few cable TV shows, and done some featured extra work. He appeared in "Horns" with Radcliffe, though IMDB shows he was listed 19th in the credits. DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC) DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered by multiple independent sources over the years. Satisfies the GNG. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure blogcritics.org and hubmesh.com are RS? DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Seems to have enough coverage (Entertainment Weekly [14], MTV [15], TVGuide [16], New York Times [17]) to pass WP:GNG CBS527^Talk 19:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of film director and actor collaborations. T. Canens (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian film director and actor collaborations[edit]

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

Trivia. We aren't Page 3 gossip magazine. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article has a typo in its name -- numbermaniac (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of film director and actor collaborations and leave redirect (I fixed typo in title) as somewhat plausible search term —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments made as to why this is not trivia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:36, 12 January 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 January 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, then severely prune that list. The sole criterion of three films is too weak and arbitrary, e.g. Robert Altman and John Schuck. The pairings should be significant and, most importantly, sourced. If an actor's been around for a while, eventually they're likely to work with directors with similarly long careers. So what? They aren't all in John Ford/John Wayne territory. Another terrible example: Tatum O'Neal made two movies with Peter Bogdanovich and had a cameo in a third. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why is this listed on both January 12 and 13? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was moved from a typo ("Indiam"), and the bot transcluded it again. @Yoshiman6464: Please see WP:AFDEQ, moving the article and/or AfD in the middle of a discussion can trip up automated scripts and bots, so doing so is not recommended. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warning. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CarBay[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEBCRIT because this run of the mill company is not notable for anything. The website has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage in independent sources. All of the coverage cited is press relases, or short articles about parent company that mention CarBay in passing. Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we should keep this page as I can see some reputable sources that clearly talk about CarBay (not directly but CarBay is being talked about when its parent Company Secured latest funding from Google Capital)

"A major part of the new funding will be used to further bolster CarDekho’s technology, R&D (research and development) and expansion within and outside of India. CarDekho has launched its services beyond Indian borders with the launch of CarBay.com in Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia. Girnar Software will now be looking to consolidate its presence in India as well as other emerging economies in Asia and the Middle East."

[18]

"Girnar Software expanded its auto portal business internationally last March with the launch of CarBay.com, which operates in 25 countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, North America, and South America."

[19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.233.98 (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the sources you have cited are primarily about Girnar Software. CarDekho is mentioned, but so are several other topics. Notability guidelines say that we are looking for coverage that is primarily about CarDekho if we want to keep an article about CarDekho. If we wanted to create a new article about Girnar Software, the other issue I'd raise with these to examples is that it is routine coverage. It's obvious that someone at Girnar wrote a press release, passed it on to these bloggers at Forbes India or CrunchBase, and they used that single source, the press release only, to rephrase it into "original" content. No actual journalism was done. The article CarBay has a dozen of these: Girnar Software gets some funding, they push out a press release, a financial blogger writes up the facts contained in the press release. It's obvious this is a run of the mill website trying to generate buzz.

We should note that your editing history for the last 15 months consists entirely of adding links to CarBay as citations, or WP:CITESPAM. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. The references are either PRIMARY sources or promotions PR pieces. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alzheimer (album)[edit]

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

Non-charting album without substantial sources in English or Spanish. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore De Plano[edit]

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

He raced only in amateur Auto GP and BOSS GP series. And his only highlight is contesting in the GP2 Series tests. So delete per WP:NMOTORSPORT Corvus tristis (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability.T v x1 05:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keychain Logistics[edit]

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

Searches are noticeably finding nothing but published and republished PR and that's exactly what this article, its information, sources and history confirm in this hence WP:NOT applies; there's no compromises when it's clear Wikipedia was misused as an advertising webhost. When an article so blatantly focuses with overblown advertising and yet its sources are themselves, that's self-explanatory. We explicitly stated in our first policies that we would never accept advertising, there's nothing to suggest we should accept them now. SwisterTwister talk 22:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Repackaged PR and bare listings are only apparent sources at this time. YCombinator itself is notable, but that notability is not automatically inherited by its incubatees. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Probably WP:TOOSOON. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no independent secondary coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to lack notability Siuenti (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete for being TOO SOON even though barely sourcable.[20] If and or when the project receives coverage to meet WP:NF the article can be resurrected. Okay with incubation. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malika Zarra[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:ANYBIO. Mentioned in a number of news reports but in passing and not as the subject of the article. Other articles are promotional or are interviews with Zarra. Overall the article is very promotional with a lot of detail that is superfluous to an encylopedic article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources found by the news search linked above have Zarra and her music as their subject such as this one in Jazz Times and this on a French news site that appears reliable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to those sources found by 86, the lowest hanging fruit is that she's had profiles in Albuquerque Journal and the Newark Star-Ledger. 14 cites in Lexis, 70 in Newsbank. Many are pedestrian, but these profiles seem to clear the bar. (Note: I don't think there's a good case for a merge with Mycale (vocal ensemble). But I did consider it and think independent articles of the musicians involved in Mycale is probably best with their eclectic productions). AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Softly. T. Canens (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sasquatch (song)[edit]

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

No indication of notability under WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS in given sources and searches don't turn up anything beyond lyrics sites, youtube videos, download sites, social media, etc. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. For now. But WP:NPASR should the RFC on the award conclude that receiving it does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO. T. Canens (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie R. Mitchell[edit]

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

No independent coverage. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Much like the deletions of these other scouting organization personel -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - meets WP:ANYBIO per being a recipient of the Bronze Wolf Award--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it populates its own Google search when you type in Leslie Mitchell JOTA. ~~You haven't done your homework.~~ ^[1]^[2]^[3] are independent non=Scouting references.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - also meets WP:ANYBIO .2 per being founder of a major world wide Amateur Radio event. ^[4] --Egel _Reaction? 21:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Meets point 1 of WP:ANYBIO having been awarded the Bronze Wolf Award, and point 2 having created a worldwide annual Scouting event using amateur radio. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 10:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kintetsubuffalo. --evrik ^(talk) 16:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get it - this guy was a great scout and awarded their highest honour and a great amateur radio enthusiast, but can you provide references that pass the criteria in WP:BASIC? The references provided by Evet are clubs or blogs for amateur radio and the others in the article are from the scouting movement. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject? The references provided to date fail this test or fail the criteria in WP:RS. You say that he was awarded the Bronze Wolf Award but this is awarded by the scouts so its still a circular reference. That's a bit like expecting every IBM Fellow to have their own article for example - it may be prestigious and difficult to get but its still not really an "external" award and does not imply that the person is notable and merits an article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Over the years I have seen serious mention of JOTA in newspapers, but I do not have the time to find them. The amateur radio links can be independent of the subject, if they are published by organisations that do not run JOTA and have no links to running JOTA except that both use radios. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, or Redirect to Jamboree-on-the-Air. Considering this guy's passing went almost unnoticed by the newspapers and the only supporting evidence is from amateur radio/scouts websites, we don't have any strong indications of widescale notability. A Scouts Movement award isn't sufficient proof either. I'm open to seeing evidence of pre-internet news coverage, considering his long life. Sionk (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kintetsubuffalo, Bronze Wolf awardees are notable.Naraht (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that a few editors here state that Bronze Wolf awardees are notable but saying something doesn't make it so. What we need are references that enable this topic to pass WP:BASIC. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7/2 thus far is a little more than "a few"-unless on your planet, Trump got "a few" more electoral votes than Clinton. I can see where that, plus now three independent sources, would make it difficult to continue making your argument. Have a nice big slice of "saying something doesn't make it so."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness this process isn't a simple count of !votes. So far, nobody has argued against the failure of WP:BASIC. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really should get that checked. Both Egel and btphelps have actually made and bolstered that argument. Also, in English, we say "Thank goodness". Now what those votes should tell you is that your argument in this situation isn't very convincing, and those other editors, to include an admin mind you, can also effectively use Wikipedia policies.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The argument is given above - "Meets point 1 of WP:ANYBIO" - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". The Bronze Wolf Award is well-known and significant. It is noticed outside of Scouting. Being an internal award does not prevent it from meeting this criteria. Nevertheless, I would like to see sources that show an individual recipient of the award has been noticed. I think that is clear here. However, some other cases where articles on recipients have come to AfD, it was not clear but the sources might not be in English. I feel sure that this notice of someone receiving the award will be easy to find if the recipient lives in the USA or UK. We may be in danger of having articles on recipients just because they live in some countries, while recipients who live in other countries do not have articles. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Jamboree on the Air was a notable event and the as the initiator of the event, the article subject is notable. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 04:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tags from Bronze Wolf Award as there are now _THREE_ independent sources, thanks for your legwork, btphelps!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh ... no, there's not "_THREE_ *independent* sources" to use your exclaimatory formatting. Read WP:RS. FYI, there are 7 sources in that article. Only one, the book by Tara Atterberry, could be considered as independent - and the book is a series of books published by Gale Research published every 5 years or so and it mentions the award in passing. The rest are directly associated with the Scouts. If the Bronze Wolf award is a significant national or international award, I expect to find a lot of independent sources - I find nothing that satisfies WP:RS. Perhaps you can help and find some? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hahahaha-thank you for that, I needed a laugh. The Chiangmai Mail is in no way associated with Scouting, and the LDS are a church. Also, in English, we say "exclamatory".~~--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the appropriate Bronze Wolf Talk page about those sources (hint: they are not independent secondary reliable sources). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boo-yah! http://www.gov.ph/1993/03/08/speech-of-president-ramos-on-the-scout-bronze-wolf-award/ The Government of the Philippines is as independent as you can get. ~~Put it to bed~~.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from posting off-topic here. The correct place for those references is at the Bronze Wolf Talk page and I've responded there. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Off topic? Pull your head out-you're the one who brought it up!~~--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The heart of the concern about this article (and related ones) is the notability of the Bronze Wolf Award. Since the award was created in 1935, a few million Scouters from dozens of countries around the world have been active in that organization, and of that number, less than 400 have been recognized with this award. Within this world wide community composed of civic organizations, governments, churches, schools, and others, when an individual receives the Bronze Wolf Award, it is indeed noteworthy. While it is a challenge to find strong secondary or tertiary sources, the recipient is notable by the distinction of having received this award for many years of service to their community through their support of Scouting.

Let's not dispute each Bronze Wolf recipient one by one. Take this argument for deletion to the award itself if necessary. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the subject is whether Leslie R. Mitchell meets WP:GNG and the discussion about the award should take place elsewhere. No-one has given any justification for "strong" keep, other than perhaps their bias as members of WikiProject Scouting. Sionk (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my point about IBM fellows above. Without "external" and independent third party verification, your argument is circular. The Bronze Wolf award is awarded by the Scouting organization and the only sources are related to reports on scouting events and therefore the "importance" of the award is inherited from the Scouts and internal to the Scouts. Also, Sionk's point still holds. This AfD is about Mr. Mitchell and the article fails WP:BASIC. We need independent third party sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The Bronze Wolf is a major award by a major international organisation. Secondary sources can be difficult to find, because its recipients tend not to be publicity hounds. I recently wrote an article about a Silver Wolf - and the only source I could find was the local newspaper. Nevertheless, I had no doubt at all that he sailed through WP:GNG with colours flying. (Declaration: onetime Senior Scout, but no connection with Scouting for over 50 years.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the article on P. B. Nevill also fails WP:BASIC (all of the sources are Scouting sources) and it is difficult to see why Mr. Nevill is notable outside of the scouting movement. It may be concluded that the recipients of Wolf awards are automatically notable. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speaking of "off-topic" and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, P. B. Nevill was OBE-you are really scrounging, aren't you?~~--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing:I express no comment on P. B. Nevill, who is not the subject of this AfD. I edited that article only for everyday reasons - i.e. spacing initials per WP:MOS, and adding it to an existing category. Please justify your introduction of P. B. Nevill into this discussion. IMO it's WP:OFFTOPIC. Narky Blert (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is off-topic in the slightest and it is probably closer to the truth that some editors are uncomfortable at the thoughts of any added scrutiny of some of the articles that they've created/editted. You stated that you recently wrote an article about a recipient of a Silver Wolf award and that the *only* source you could find was the local newspaper but that nonetheless you had no doubt *at all* that he sailed through WP:GNG. The implication was that the topic of your recent article was notable due to their being a recipient of the Silver Wolf award (even though you could only find a single source from a local newpaper). It was fully justifiable for any editor to challenge this assertion and I looked up your editing history to find the article (I was curious as to why you did not include a link to the article). Interesting that your recently wrote an article now becomes spacing initials, that your sole purpose of editing the article was to insert a Category of "Recipients of the Silver Wolf Award", and that kintetsubuffalo was the very next editor of the article. If nothing else, it shows the paucity of content for many of the "Wolf" recipient articles and it highlights that the closing admin here will need to make a decision on whether being a recipient of a Wolf award meets the criteria in ANYBIO. If not, other articles will come under increased scrutiny. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting that your recently wrote an article now becomes spacing initials." Different articles, that's why. Please read what I actually wrote in this AfD; please do not put words into my mouth. Narky Blert (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that the argument put forward is that Mr. Mitchell is notable *because* he received a Bronze Wolf award. Criteria 1 from WP:ANYBIO states The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. I would argue that the Wolf awards cannot be regarded as well-known there are apparently no independent intellectually-seperate references that state that a Wolf award is a significant award or honour. Other will disagree and state that the award is the highest award that can be given by a notable international organisation. It appears that whoever closes this AfD may well have to consider this argument and make a decision. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there are intellectually-separate references, and those have been added to the award article.

~~I found this strange obit for him, also an intellectually-separate reference.^[5]~~--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to appear superior by name-calling and correcting spelling mistakes? Most editors find it has the opposite effect. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious?! Did you read it? That is a legal notice published to invite claims to his estate. Sionk (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Uncertain. To test the notability of the recipients of the awards, I found an instance where there was essentially nothing else claimed, and I just listed it for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbert Hartog. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Jamboree-on-the-Air on the basis of a news archive search on Proquest, where his Leslie + Mitchell + Jamboree brings up old feature coverage of him that validates the article, such as like (Scouts tune in all over world: Calling all Scouts!, Bennett, Harold F. The Christian Science Monitor [Boston, Mass] 16 Sep 1965: 17. ).E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because most Keep votes are assuming that the subject is notable due to being a recipient of an award which is mentioned nowhere in WP notability guidelines Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not a particularly strong one. There probably should be a broader discussion and RfC on whether the award itself is qualifying, because as of right now, there is no broad consensus that it is. Furthermore, it is a consensus that likely auto-keeps 350+ articles and growing, or near-auto noms them depending on their quality.

However, what the award does do is lend credence to the individual's actual central claim to notability, which is founding the event and popularizing amateur radio among scouts. Nontheless, to those who are committed to this article, I would strongly recommend improving it in the long term, or you may likely face a second nomination, and one with a bit stronger rationale, especially if the broader consensus is to give greater scrutiny to the articles for people whose notability rests, in small or large part, on receipt of the award. TimothyJosephWood 14:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope and breadth of the sources provided support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just received a letter from his daughter stating "not really aware of any secondary sources of the kind Wikipedia favours as evidence of notability. I do have some newspaper clippings at home, though, which may allow me to add a few more sources to the reference list over the next few days. Unfortunately, Dad was far too modest to celebrate his own achievement, which means that it attracted less notice than it might have done! My mother and I were very touched by the messages from all over the world which we received when he died." which backs up the arguments made by Bduke and Btphelps. BASED ON THIS, I ASK ANY CLOSING ADMIN FOR MORE TIME--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: OK, so this was NAC closed on the basis that the award was notable but that was clearly wrong. I have voided that close. The keep side are arguing without a policy basis that the award is notable but there appears no dispute that the article is not adequately sources and that this fails GNG. Notability through an SNG is supposed to be a convenient short cut for subjects likely to meet the GNG. In this case, this appears not to be the case. Please can we have some further discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity-the NAC close was clearly wrong. The award is notable per WP:GNG and the deletes have confirmed this as well. "The keep side are arguing without a policy basis" is a biased assessment-the "keep side" are arguing per points #1 and #2 of WP:ANYBIO, which is clearly policy-based. There is no dispute that the article was not adequately sourced, that situation has changed since the debate began and is being rectified. So, thanks for the reopen, but no thanks for the incorrect summary.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of order, whether the award is notable is not the same as saying that everyone who received the award is notable. The Army Service Ribbon is notable, but the vast and overwhelming majority of people who receive it are not. (Otherwise someone please go ahead and write my article already.) TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~That comparison is as stupid as it is meaningless to this discussion.~~ "The Army Service Ribbon is awarded to members of the Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for successful completion of initial-entry training". There are 1,015,000 active military in that branch with the thing, over the course of 36 years that will have been an astounding number. I'm sure McDonald's awards a pin when you finish training, too. Whereas the Bronze Wolf Award "is only "given to people that have provided a lifetime (my emphasis) of selfless and voluntary service to the upliftment and service of youth and country."" and "limited (again my emphasis) to "approximately one award for each 2,000,000 members worldwide"" meaning that even at capacity only 14 may be awarded for 28,000,000 Scouts worldwide. So, no, not an apt comparison in any way.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the comparison illustrates is that the notability of an award, and the notability conferred by the award are separate issues. TimothyJosephWood 11:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The key point here seems to be whether receiving a Bronze Wolf award inherently confers notabilty (in the Wikipedia sense of the word) on the recipient. That question is being debated in an RfC at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award, with the outcome not yet apparent. Until that RfC is settled, it seems to me that this AfD can't really be adjudicated. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but this AfD will have run a month tomorrow. The RfC could run another month or more. At the ANI for the NAC close, it was repeated several times that it looked like no other way to close but keep, even reasons aside from the award (just reread it myself). Since we do now have an RfC at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award, this reopen is for formal admin closure, and not meant to be redundant to that RfC. ANYBIO will come into play the African ones, and as Bduke says, a lot of _those_ cases boil down to little being accessible in English and on the net. What surprised me was that three of the African names already had articles and it was just up to me to plug in or remove an initial to find them. This AfD now involves not just ANYBIO but other, larger GNG points he passes. My view is this should run to the end of its present cycle, Thursday January 19, 2017, closed by an uninvolved, respected admin, and let the RfC handle further discussion to that conclusion.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely meets the GNG (can't see the CSM article from home). Also meets the BIO SNG due to the award. keepHobit (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The CSM article is behind a paywall. User:E.M.Gregory has kindly posted a summary of the contents of the article which I will paste here. By any measure, the CSM article pushes Mitchell over the line for GNG. This is a long, reported article about the Jamboree-on-the-Air, written back in an era when amateur radio was a very popular hobby. I have just re-read it, in a pdf file linked via Proquest. It broadly covers the radio aspect of that year's jamboree, Scouts in various parts of the planet participating, a Scout troop in which every boy has a radio operator license, the photo is of a Schout troop in Norway listening in on their ham radio set. In the course of all this there is a section on Mitchell as the "originator" of the Jamboree. it included a potted bio of his involvement with radio, his wartime service record, the 1958 jamboree where he originated the program. It does not feature any direct quotes or, indeed, any indication that the journalist spoke with or met him. It is, is, however, the paradigm of a WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm reluctant to even dignify this farce with a statement, but I do want my opinion on record here. If Spartaz feels that the close was invalid, he's required (in theory, of course; "no big deal" my ass) to take his objection up at DRV. In practice, however, he's not "required" to do anything; he's an administrator, and therefore, infallible. Compounding the felony of illegitimately "voiding" the "keep" close, is his not-so-thinly veiled vote for deletion in his "relist" statement. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please relax. Those of us who voted keep asked for the invalid close to be reopened, as we're trying to build/come to a consensus as to the notability-granting (or lack thereof) of the Bronze Wolf Award. Spartaz' reopen assessment statement was incorrect (and biased for an admin, as you say), but his reopen itself was at our request. It'll all come out in the wash.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brigadier General Edward Morton CBE[edit]

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

There's no doubt that a general and a recipient of a high state decoration would have been a notable subject for an encyclopedic article. However, this article is completely unreferenced, and a Google search for either "General Edward Morton" or "Edward Morton, CBE" returned nothing relevant. Equally suspect is the claim that "not a great deal is currently known about him or what he achieved"; if he served as a general in World War I and died in 1948, the records should be all over the place. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. By searching for '"Edward Morton" "Brigadier General"' I came across this. Close, but probably not the same person; he held the same rank, but served in World War II rather than World War I and Boer War; the year of death is also different. (No mention of the Order of the British Empire, either.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same person. The link is for Edward Morton Hudgins. CBS527^Talk 22:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a likely hoax. No trace of a First World War general? Extremely dubious. Also, Macafee warns me against Rosoft's link. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was a major, made a temporary brigadier general in 1915 for some unspecified length of time, and a major and battalion lieutenant colonel in 1919, according to Peter James' sources. Doesn't satisfy GNG and very, very borderline on the WP:SOLDIER requirements. Not sure about the CBE satisfying notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a probable hoax or exaggerated piece of family history. The CBE award should be listed at https://www.thegazette.co.uk/awards-and-accreditation but I can't find it using various combinations of names rank and date. Note that "Edward Morton" in quotes is not a useful search term because such notices usually include middle names. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Written by a family member whose only contributions to Wikipedia involve this individual, and completely reliant on his family knowledge. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some records exist (National Archive covers 1894 to the start of 1908, London Gazette 29381 for "temporary Brigadier General" in 1915 and 31377 for CBE in 1919 Birthday Honours, same name and regiment). The second and third seem to be the same person, but unfortunately I can't find references that link these to the first - it's likely that they exist but not online yet. Peter James (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While WP:SOLDIER appears to be met, it can't be verified because the GNG isn't met. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Difficult to find references to pass WP:GNG CBS527^Talk 23:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Penghu. The only true "oppose deletion" rationale provided is without merit. The article in it's current state is a near exact replica of existing content and does not in even a single instance discuss the "geographical entity", but, entirely repeats the history taken verbatim from Penghu. Thus it is a Content fork.

It is reasonable to believe that a reader will search for "Penghu Islands" instead of Penghu. Thus the page should exist in its original and long standing "redirect" form (April 2003 - January 2012 and then March 2012 - January 2017) rather than be deleted outright.

I noted concerns that the article should exist as a separate entity to Penghu to distinguish between Geography and Political discussion. These are valid concerns, however, combining the issue of content forking with the other counter-argument of WP:SPLIT the concerns are overshadowed by greater issues. Articles like Iceland and Taiwan are 100k+ bytes long and require splitting, Penghu is a mere 12k bytes of readable prose. Size is not a reasonable reason to split, nor does the split introduce any new content to be merged - except possibly the infobox.

Raw numbers are irrelevant, but, for those interested; 1 outright oppose deletion, 2 comments that constitute keep, 1 speedy delete, 1 delete or redirect, 1 merge, and 2 comments of indiscernible opinion.

The reason for redirect is to restore the page to a useful state, again no new content has been added (barring a different type of infobox) and anybody searching "Penghu Islands" will be directed to half of an article instead of the whole. (non-admin closure) Mr rnddude (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penghu Islands[edit]

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

Unnecessary fork of Penghu (from which the present text was taken). When a political division is coterminous with a feature of the same name, treating both in the same article avoids duplication and gives readers what they are searching for more quickly (cf Tasmania, Prince Edward Island, Jersey, Corsica, Sardinia, Crete, Hainan, etc). Kanguole 13:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Geographical entity and political entity are two different things, and they should be separate articles for avoiding confusions and lengthy articles (cf Iceland and Geography of Iceland, Cuba and Geography of Cuba, Sri Lanka and Geography of Sri Lanka, and Jamaica and Geography of Jamaica, and Taiwan and Geography of Taiwan). --Matt Smith (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (i.e. revision-delete) as copyright violation. Matt Smith, the editor who forked the article, did not follow instructions at WP:SPLIT. On the merits, this content fork is completely unnecessary, because readers are better served with a single comprehensive article. No such user (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but this looks like a false claim of copyright violation, if what you mean is that the article was "forked", i.e. copied from the other Wikipedia article, rather than copied from a copyrighted external source. It looks like you are just mad about the split of article. A "speedy delete" based on false premise of copyvio is not justified.
About whether the original Penghu article should be split or not, could people explain a bit more why it should or should not be split? It is okay to split an article for length reasons, for example. If an article is split, it should not be a near-copy of the original article. If the current Penghu Islands article is not properly set up to complement the original, then can it be edited to be compatible? Or is it necessary to delete it? --do ncr am 20:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't studied it properly, but offhand the Penghu Islands article does not seem to be about geography at all. There is only one sentence of geographical-type info, that it is an archipelago of so many islands. Then it is all history, which would seem to me to be naturally connected to modern politics, which i gather is covered in the other article. --do ncr am 20:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Penghu, from which this article is taken is about 2,500 words, well under the length where a split is necessay ie. "<40 kB Length alone does not justify division", see WP:TOOBIG, btw, examples given by article creator, that have splits, have approximate lengths of 12000 words (Iceland), 10,000 words (Cuba), 12,000 (Sri Lanka), 8,500 (Jamaica), and 13,000 (Taiwan). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are four articles/redirects involved here, all older than 2008. Unscintillating (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue Palm Island/Great Palm Island is another example of a valid article separation of political organization and geography. The article being argued for deletion here dates back to 2003, so a deletion makes no sense. Indeed, a look at the edit history shows that this dispute is an edit war. WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT is the applicable policy. Naturally, any attribution problems need to be corrected, by identifying in an edit comment the source article for the material. Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to keep this and distinguish between a geographical entity (the archipelago)) and the political entity (the Penghu county). Penghu should be about the political entity though. Penghu Islands should contain most of the geography and should point to the county article. Sections such as transportation and others should be only there in the county article. It's gonna be a bit hard though and I don't mind helping out if I have time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How does forking the Penghu article help readers? There are already small articles on Penghu County Government and Penghu County Council. Kanguole 08:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article such as Penghu County Government and Penghu County Council can clearly be merged into the main Penghu article (which should be about the county). But an article about the geographic entity should be separate from a political entity. It does help the readers as it explains the difference between the political and the geographic entity. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Helps how, exactly? It is self-evident that an island or archipelago is a physical geographic entity first and foremost, but if it is inhabited it will also have history, demographics, economy and some kind of political organization. I don't see how readers are helped by having to jump from one article to another to connect the dots. Worse still, the article Penghu Islands as forked now is about history, not about physical geography. That is not helpful to readers at all.
The page at Penghu Islands had always been a redirect until the recent fork, more or less (save for this short-lived stub from 2012, which was quickly redirected back), and it should stay that way. The issue here is: what do we do with undiscussed content forks? My answer was "delete" (and create a redirect) so that we don't have duplicated history (and this does amount to copyvio). Technically, I could have !voted "Merge" or "Redirect" which would result in a similar outcome. No such user (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete/restore redirect; there is no reason for this to exist as largely overlapping with Penghu which is the best place to cover it as not too long, not needing to be split.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Penghu and redirect. Penghu County Government and Penghu County Council should also be merged into Penghu, IMO. There is no reason, yet, for all these separate articles as all the information can comfortably be dealt with on one page. Penghu is presently 12 kB and Penghu Islands is 8634 B, "readable prose size", 20.6 kB in total. Adding the tiny amount at the other articles makes it about 21 kB, so size alone doesn't warrant a continued split (< 40 kB). In terms of content, if Penghu Islands were primarily about the toponymy, geography and demographics of the archipelago then it could be justified as having a separate existence. It isn't: it's about the history of various peoples settling, invading and evacuating the islands, all of which belongs in the other article. Cf. Great Britain and United Kingdom — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since all of the 8634 B of text in Penghu Islands was copied from the 12 kB of Penghu, the total would be 12 kB rather than 20.6 kB. Penghu County Government and Penghu County Council do at least have distinct content. Kanguole 11:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Calvin Hill[edit]

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

I tidied this page up and then wondered why. He was a farmer. And a corporal. And... that's it. No indication of notability, not even a medal. Only source appears to be a self-published book by a descendant. Emeraude (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed, his most notable activity was apparently being a soldier, but he does not seem to meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:ANYBIO by any means. He never did anything remotely notable by our standards. I also have my doubts whether the sole source is an RS, it seems to be some self published family history which has probably a short blurb about him. There is nothing else on him online, and I also doubt that there is anything else about him offline too. I think it is safe to say that this article can be deleted per the aforementioned guidelines and WP:GNG due a lack of notability and RS. Dead Mary (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see any notability whatsoever. Just a genealogical article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't find anything at newspapers.com, either. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is indeed interesting, but the subject is not notable. The lack of integration into the rest of the encyclopedia is an issue and the lack of sourcing about the subject is a deal breaker. Alansohn (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only one source: a book about which Google says "publisher not identified" which sounds like WP:SPS to me. Subject fails SOLDIER, GNG, and ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, impossible to WP:V. The only available source is an offline WP:SPS. – Joe (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER. Only source looks like a WP:SPS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Completely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to see here. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Financial information[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIC, this is simply a definition of something that is covered in multiple other articles. JamesG5 (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, WP:NOTDICT. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 06:54, 12 January 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 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: just been going through stubs to sort them - clearly just a dictionary entry WP:NOTDICT. DrStrauss talk 10:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn AFD was not properly performed as not all pages were properly notified. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina women's national inline hockey team[edit]

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

Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all until this is nominated properly with AFD templates on each article, then this nomination should be considered invalid and rejected. Note "Argentina women's national inline hockey team" is on the list twice, Australia women's national inline hockey team has no template on it, Australia men's national inline hockey team has a prod tag, but no AFD, but is a substantial article. Doing a quick check on newspaper searching on Trove I see stories with US (many), Britain, Czech, Germany, Namibia (many), India, Sweden, China, Argentina; so several teams can be easily proved to pass GNG. Note also WP:SPORTCRIT says "This guideline does not cover sports teams" and thus is irrelevant to this nomination. Redlinks are not a problem, especially when a topic is first written on. So this AFD should keep all the pages, and a more selective and careful nomination then proceed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all national teams competing at the highest level of the sport. Hmlarson (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2015–16 University of Missouri protests. T. Canens (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 clash between the media and racial protesters at the University of Missouri[edit]

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

Delete per NOTNEWS. The event made headlines, of course, but that doesn't mean it has become a notable topic per our guidelines. The fact that it has to have such an incredibly convoluted title is indicative of the status as not notable. Some of this content could be merged into the U of Missouri System article, or maybe the Click article, but by itself this is not a notable topic. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2015–16 University of Missouri protests per WP:NOTNEWS. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the U of Missouri protests page, per above. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The event caused a professor to lose her job, legislation was filed in the state legislature to require a First Amendment course for all state college undergraduates, one of the journalists involved won two national journalism awards (one of which was previously earned by James Foley), and the university won an award of dubious honor: a Jefferson Muzzle Award. Obama's press secretary spoke of it, as did the Missouri governor and the lieutenant governor, the event was still making headlines in all the major newspapers months afterward, and by my count at least a dozen national journalist and free speech organization became involved at one point or another. The event changed faculty reporting procedures at the university and indirectly caused the university to adopt the Chicago Principles, the legislature threatened to cut state funding until the prof was gone, and a national organization of professors censured the university indefinitely when the legislature became the profs ouster. I should think this has enduring notability per WP:EVENT. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Mark Schierbecker (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Redirect NOTNEWS (NOTJOUNALISM), Mark Schierbecker, "2015 clash between the media and racial protesters at the University of Missouri" (what?!?) is not encyclopedic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UDF 542[edit]

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

No obvious significance. A search of google scholar for "UDF 542" and "Hubble" comes up with absolutely nothing. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination, one of many faint galaxies in the UDF catalogue with no specific publications to incur significance (WP:NASTRO. Lithopsian (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment UDF 542 seems to be listed in Hubble Ultra Deep Field Catalog (UDF) (STScI, 2004). Check the image titled F775W and F850LP. Here's the main id of UDF 542 and the corresponding image in the NASA database. And here's the entry for UDF 542 in the Space Telescope Science Institute's database (the institute that manages and operates Hubble). This seems to qualify on NASTCRIT#2 criterion. Lourdes 05:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but simply being on a long, long list of objects that can only be seen in the most advanced telescopes does not make this object of interest to amateur astronomers, which is what NASTCRIT#2 specifies. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I understand. That's one reason I've been ping-ponging between comment and keep. Thanks for your note. Lourdes 17:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but by criterion 2 (which you cite), it would be deleted, certainly. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NASTRO. It (1) is not visible to the unaided eye and has never been so, (2) is not in a catalogue of interest to amateur astronomers or a catalogue of historical interest, (3) has not been the subject of in-depth attention in reliable secondary sources, and (4) was discovered after 1850. As for the discussion above, the UDF catalogue is just one of thousands available to astronomers. Astro4686 (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Graham[edit]

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

No indication of notability independent of her sister. A redirect to Heather Graham would be an acceptable outcome. John from Idegon (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a bit odd to have literally every reference in a article about one person actually be about that person's sibling, but I can see why: there's basically nothing in WP:RS about Aimee. The one passing mention I found was to a Daily Variety review of a Sundance film "of bafflingly scant purpose, finesse or narrative impetus," that "...managed to elude theatrical release." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First reference is not a RS, second links to a main page, third only mentions her sister. Searching doesn't find much else. Her most recent "biggest" role (the Shriek movie) seems to be killed off in the opening scene - so it doesn't look like she meets WP:NACTOR. MB 02:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm honestly surprised there is not more sourcing to support this actress, between her numerous (if generally minor) roles and the considerable notability of her sister. But my searches turned up absolutely nothing that qualifies as a reliable source and goes to this Graham's independent notability. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Johnston (writer)[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a writer, which just asserts that he exists and wrote stuff, and sources that exclusively to his own website and IMDb with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about him in media shown at all. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; he must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, verifying at least one specific accomplishment that would satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. st 170e 11:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. st 170e 11:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a New York Times bestselling author and has written books in the widely known Enders game series Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is an automatic WP:NAUTHOR pass in the absence of reliable source coverage about him. Wikipedia notability criteria are not passed by simply asserting that they've been passed; they're passed by properly sourcing that they've been passed. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He passes per no.3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." He has co-written many novels in the Ender's Game (series)Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person passes #3 when reliable sources are covering him in that context, not when his passage of #3 is merely asserted without reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Ender's Game (series) page. "The first two novels in the series, Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, each won both the Hugo[1][2] and Nebula[1][3] Awards, and were among the most influential science fiction novels of the 1980s."

Which constitutes reliable source coverage about Aaron Johnston how, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." As mentiloned above, he is a New York Times bestselling aurhorApollo The Logician (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting how this works. No notability criterion can ever be passed just by asserting that it's passed — regardless of what the article claims, the notability criterion is still not passed until RELIABLE SOURCE COVERAGE IN MEDIA is supporting that passage. Nobody gets, for any reason ever, an exemption from having to be reliably sourced just because some impressive-sounding accomplishment has been claimed. There is no claim of notability that any person can ever make which exempts the article from having to cite reliable source coverage in media. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the above link states that has to be the case Apollo The Logician (talk)

That's because "the above link" is about defining what is or is not a reliable source, in the context of a reference to reliable sources. The basic notability rule is where you'll find it explained that coverage about the subject in reliable sources is a base condition that has to be met before an article is allowed to even be started and that people cannot be exempted from having to be reliably sourced just because coverage of a notability criterion has been claimed but not sourced. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Herald is a good start, but not enough all by itself — but his own website and his "our authors" profile on the website of the books' publisher do not assist, because coverage has to be independent of the subject to count as reliable source coverage for the purposes of satisfying Wikipedia's inclusion rules. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This one is a bit tough. He's co-written several entries in the Ender's Game series, which is a notable series overall. However that is ultimately all that he's really known for and there hasn't been a lot of coverage of him as far as a writer goes. There's been precedent on stuff like this before. Jobie Hughes was an author known for ghostwriting a well-known series, but that's all he was known for and there wasn't enough coverage to justify him having a standalone article, so it was deleted and turned into a redirect. If he'd been writing the series solo then that might have gone differently, which is probably why Andrew Neiderman has an article outside of the VC Andrews stuff. This is what makes Johnson so difficult to really decide - he's well known for working with Card, but anything that is written about him tends to be predominantly about Card or the series, with him as more of an afterthought. There's so little out there that he could just as easily be covered in a subsection in Card's article, honestly. He definitely needs to have something about him somewhere, but the question here is where and how much. If we could show that he did something in the Ender's Game series solo, that would help out a lot, as well as coverage for anything he might have done independently of Card as a whole. It's kind of surprising that there isn't something out there, honestly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is a comic and tv writer as well. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue though, is that none of the stuff he's put out independently of Card is really notable. The only things that have been notable have been the Card/Johnson works, which is why I'm leaning towards giving Johnson a subsection in Card's article and redirecting there. He's just not really independently notable because even when he is mentioned in RS, it's always in passing because the main focus is on Card and the work he's done with Card. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author of ten books, important in other media. No pretense of compliance with WP:Before. Article, content and referencing can be (and will be) improved. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obvious signs of Notability present. --Tarzany (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closer: This account was created today, and it's only edits are to AfDs. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the sources currently in the article. The heraldextra.com helps a little towards WP:GNG, but it´s not enough. I don´t think Goodreads is something that shows WP:NOTABILITY, it seems largely usergenerated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A redirect to Ender's Game (series) could be helpful to readers, he´s mentioned there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goodreads isn't considered to be a RS - the vast majority of content there is user generated, as users can create and edit information on books as long as they have librarian status, which is not difficult to achieve. The author's pages are debatable, as they're either created by the author or they were added by a random user. In the first case it'd be at best a primary source and couldn't show notability and in the second it's a non-RS. In the case of Goodreads, his author bio is also available on the author's official website, which should be the primary source used when backing up basic information. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mega problem his name is spelled wrong above, leading me and probably others to fail to be able to find him. it's Johston with a "t".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly moved this discussion to the proper spelling: Johnston.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

probable keep Searching with keywords turned up reviews of some of his books, which I added to the page. A few more sources should put it over the top.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)@Bearcat:[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 January 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since "Enders Game" and "Speaker for the Dead" were fully the work of Orson Scott Card they do not confer notability on Johnston. This is not to say he is or is not notable, it is just to say that writting later works in a series that had earlier works win major distinctions does not make someone notable on its face.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources are presence that I think he passes notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on reviews and sources found by E.M.Gregory. ABF99 (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin family (Coronation Street)[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY #2 because it is a genealogical entry that does not enhance the reader's understanding of a notable topic. It also fails WP:NOR as it can't be attributed to a reliable source. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 03:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article also fails WP:GNG as it has no "significant coverage in reliable sources. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 16:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGENEALOGY wouldn't apply to fictional families, I daresay. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked to this discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Coronation Street. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Mike Baldwin (Coronation Street) who appears to be the "head" of this fictional family). Works about fiction should be written from the point of view of the real world, and as the article currently stands, it only contains "in-universe" information, so fails WP:PLOT. anemone projectors 19:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an unsourced stub and the first line of the article even gets the family's name wrong. I don't think a redirect would be appropriate because there are multiple articles it could redirect to. One for each family member. I think this would better serve as a category rather than an article. There are a few other similar articles created by the same user Including Barlow family and Connor family. I think if this article is deleted it would be sensible to nominate those for deletion as well. Eopsid (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have bundled the following articles according to User:Eopsid -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 17:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can I advise against bundling in this case? Especially given that this discussion has already been going on for a while. A couple of separate nominations wouldn't hurt. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If notability cannot be established, there is no reason for this to exist. Also include the two articles above if those end up being counted in the closing. TTN (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fictional genealogy with absolutely no sources whatsoever. Longevitydude (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to readily available sources such as the series itself, but beyond that also numerous online articles talking about the family and even such published books as this. --24.112.201.254 (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, an article should have sources to back it up which this stub does not have. I you feel like it should stay, then you can fix it up and add sources. Longevitydude (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'm an avid genealogist and I think these three stubs need to go so that should tell you something. Longevitydude (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources are internal to the series itself or character/plot summaries. No significant coverage in independent sources. Applies to the other family articles Eopsid mentions, as well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Xanth_characters#Bink. Any useful content may be merged at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magician Bink[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This does not establish a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Do you have any actual reasoning or are you being purposefully contrary? The reasoning for the content's removal is perfectly legitimate, so please provide reliable sources if you think the assertion is false. TTN (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some decent sources can be identified. I would not be opposed to a merge if a suitable target and a willing editor can be found. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Xanth characters. Not notable enough for a standalone article, but as a major character in a long-running series, the content would fit well in a character list. I can do the merge. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Xanth characters. The subject is not notable enough, and has no reliable sources, so it should definitely not remain as a stand alone article. However, if people are willing to do the work necessary for a merger, I would not be opposed to that, and a Redirect would allow the article's history to remain to make that process easier. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I've merged the magicians page with this one and even separated the kings from the magicians in order to make everything flow a little better. As far as merging goes, I don't know how much more needs to be at List_of_Xanth_characters#Bink, as it's generally a good overview of the character. It could possibly include a list of the books he's appeared in, I suppose. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hackers Day (Novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable ebook published a few days ago. No evidence that it passes WP:NBOOK or WP:NWEB. No sources, and the external links are just various repetitions of the plot from online ebook sellers or fan sites. Meters (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least one blog has been added to the list of external links now. This is looking like WP:PROMOTION. Meters (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 06:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely does not pass WP:NBOOK at this point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and all presence on the web seems to be self-promotion (Facebook, Goodreads, etc.)Glendoremus (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite notable. I read it and a lot of people are talking about it and indeed it's a great book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modepo2 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC) — Modepo2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please explain how you think this ebook passes WP:NBOOK. I don't see it meeting WP:BOOKCRIT. Can you provide independent reliable sources showing that it has been the subject of serious reviews, for example? What we have so far is publicity and blog postings and does not qualify. Meters (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Penzone[edit]

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

Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a county sheriff, whose only discernible claim of notability is that he defeated a much more nationally famous predecessor. "County sheriff" is not a level of office that constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL pass -- but the sourcing here doesn't get him over WP:GNG either: of the five references, one is his own self-published campaign website, one is a user-generated public relations wiki, two are routine local coverage of the election campaign itself, and while one source does expand beyond the purely local it (a) is not substantively about Penzone, and (b) exists primarily because Arpaio (the predecessor he defeated) was a nationally-notable figure and not because Penzone has gotten there yet. No prejudice against recreation in the future if much more sourcing and substance can be shown than this, but "defeating a nationally controversial figure in an office that doesn't normally confer an automatic NPOL pass on every holder of that office" is not enough, in and of itself, to make a county sheriff more notable than the thousands of other county sheriffs across the entire United States who don't have Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without a doubt, he has gained more coverage as a result of his opponent than would a typical sheriff candidate. But, that coverage is of him and his tenure. Here's CBS News, and there has been tons of coverage in the local Maricopa County media, including AZCentral, KTAR, 12news, and the Phoenix New Times. Coverage appears likely to continue as an elected official in a high profile job. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All local political figures and elections always generate local coverage in their local media — so coverage in Phoenix/Maricopa is merely WP:ROUTINE, because such sources are merely expected to exist and do not constitute proof that he's more notable than the norm. And the coverage beyond Maricopa, as of right now, attests to Arpaio's notability, not Penzone's, because Arpaio is the reason it was a news story anywhere beyond Maricopa. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've beefed up the article considerably and I think it gets over the hurdle. And while it's true that there are thousands of county sheriffs across the United States, Maricopa County is the fourth-most populous country in America. Neutrality^talk 19:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on current sources of the article, he seems to have enough direct coverage in third party sources to pass basic notability, though hopefully the article continues to expand beyond the recent election. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are all local except 2 or 3, and either don't say much other than he won the election, or focus more on his predecessor than himself. I don't think this is sufficient in-depth coverage. Maricopa county is indeed large and Penzone might cause significant controversy depending on how much of Arpaio's legacy he changes and how his actions are received. But so far all he has done is win the election, which probably would have happened regardless of the challenger. MB 22:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to the significance of his election over a nationally-known opponent.--TommyBoy (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Defeated a nationally-known opponent in an election for a normally non-notable office" is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself — not least because the mere existence of an article about Penzone can then be reified into him also being claimed as "nationally-known" enough to create another automatic inclusion freebie for the next holder of the office after him, on and on recursively ad infinitum. If the office isn't one where all holders automatically qualify for Wikipedia articles, then a holder of that office cannot inherit notability just because his predecessor happened to qualify as the exception to the rule. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I appreciate that this is a borderline case with nuanced policy considerations, and Bearcat has made his case well--but in the final analysis, I feel that the aggregate of the sources is sufficient to at least minimally break the WP:GNG threshold. Having reviewed each of the sources, I am not convinced that there is anything particularly WP:routine about the coverage as whole (local or otherwise), nor that it is particularly focused on Arpaio to the exclusion of Penzone. I'm not doing cartwheels over it, but there does seem sufficient notability for an article here. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nationally known as Joe Arpaio's replacement. More than enough for notability, will no doubt recive attention for years to come. -O.R.^Comms 06:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Quick delete as a copy of this PR page, which is not explicitly copyleft and can therefore be presumed to be conventionally copyright ("all rights reserved"). And even if copyright weren't problematic, a SNOW delete would seem appropriate. Hoary (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Takay[edit]

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

I can only find passing mentions of the article subject, nothing to indicate notability. Sam Walton (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^Delete I find less than that. Not wp:n. No significant, independent, reliable sources. DonFB (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not so much as a single reliable source to support this glowingly promotional/non-encyclopedic article. Independent searches turn up nothing which would suggest sourceable notability. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability has not been demonstrated. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search turns up nothing. No reliable sources provided in the article. Brad v 23:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa DaCosta[edit]

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

ot enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NAUTHOR. Most of books I have checked are all self-published using Amazons CreateSpace platform though two seem to be published by a "real" publisher, Bloomsbury Publishing. The sources, excepting one interview, are either publisher PR or from Kirkus, a pay-for-reviews shop [21]. The only other thing is an article she wrote for The Guardian [22]. Jbh ^Talk 00:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 00:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 00:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note in relation to: WP:NAUTHOR 1, The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. See: http://selfpublishingadvice.org/should-indies-go-wide-fbf16/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9NTKOGuhjY and Pippa also published a number of articles for Writers & Artists yearbook: https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/writers/advice/821/self-publishing/considering-self-publishing/ and https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/writers/advice/882/self-publishing/marketing-and-publicity/ and https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/writers/advice/873/self-publishing/considering-self-publishing/ The Writers & Artists Yearbook is a respected and well-known yearly publication in the UK.

Kirkus Reviews are a well-known and respected reviews company, and while the links cited in the article are for Kirkus Indie, please note from their website that Kirkus indipendent reviews are treated in exactly the same way as trade professional reviews. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/indie-reviews/ "INDIE AUTHORS GET THE SAME UNBIASED, PROFESSIONAL REVIEWS AS TRADITIONALLY PUBLISHED AUTHORS." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilinside121 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC) — Devilinside121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

She is also published by Tantor Audio. I'm not sure the insinuated insults about 'real' publishers suit the tone, but since we've started Tantor Audio is a 'real' publisher. DaCosta has 14 titles on Audible where even self-publishing comes with a rather higher barrier to entry and her books have in excess of 1,000 ratings there. I've noted only a single review given in exchange for a gifted copy so far. JohnnyOverload (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC) — JohnnyOverload (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Delete. There is some coverage. The Bookseller notes that she was picked up by Bloomsbury, so although she may have started out self-published, she is no longer. It also mentions that Beyond The Veil "reached the quarter finals in the fantasy category of the Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award." A feature in USA Today picked out The Girl From Above as one of its "Memorable Books of 2016" here. There is also coverage in sci-fi and fantasy websites such as SFF World and All Things Urban Fantasy. But having searched I don't think this is sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR or the "significant coverage in reliable sources" demanded by WP:GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Pawnkingthree's rationale. Not notable at this time that I can tell, but I'm not opposed to changing my vote if someone can show notability with more coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As notable as other Wikipedia author examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._M._Ward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeaniene_Frost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacia_Kane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith_Saintcrow (links supplied as examples). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilinside121 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://thefifthsense.i-d.co/en_us/article/meet-phoebe-dahl-the-one-woman-fashion-protagonist-whos-going-to-change-the-world/

[2] ttp://www.arrl.org/news/jamboree-on-the-air-jota-founder-les-mitchell-g3bhk-sk

[3] ttps://www.amateurradio.com.au/news/father-jota-silent-key

[4] ttp://www.wia.org.au/members/broadcast/2014_wianews/display.php?file_id=wianews-2014-10-12

[5] The CQ Amateur Radio Hall of Fame

[6] ttp://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11613012.LESLIE_RAYMOND_VIET_MITCHELL__Deceased_/?ref=erec

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]