Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 January	26 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 procedural close. Article was merged prior to AfD; discussion contesting the merge has resolved; redirect restored. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 United States Presidential Inauguration riots[edit]

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

This article's content can be found at Protests against Donald Trump#Inauguration_protests and I don't believe there is a need for a separate article about protests on Inauguration Day. Gfcvoice (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close WP:IAR; there is already a merge discussion underway, so this AfD isn't really necessary. ansh 666 07:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article already exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump#Inauguration protests – Merge was already performed a few days ago, then contested. Article has not been expanded in the meantime, while details on this protest are elsewhere. See Talk page for details. — JFG ^talk 16:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support the comments of JFG, that the article should be redirected to Protests against Donald Trump#Inauguration protests. Disclosure: I am the editor who nominated the deletion of this article. Gfcvoice (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update – Given consensus on the talk page and here, included by OP, I have redirected again. Somebody uninvolved please close the AfD. — JFG ^talk 20:23, 26 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Hagan[edit]

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

No major roles to indicate automatic notability under WP:NACTOR. Doesn't appear to meet GNG either. Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As it stands, qualifies for WP:BLPPROD as an unsourced biography. Also very non-neutral. (Non-neutrality would warrant changing the tone if it were properly sourced, but it isn't. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for actors. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable actor and not enough reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Also, Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Citobun (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly self promotion. Not enough sources. I can easily find about 10 different actors being way more notable and not having wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.216.197 (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I was about to remove a couple of sentences as a copyvio of her IMDB bio, but then again, the actor is the author of that bio, and she's presumably written this WP bio, too. So not a copyvio (and we don't know how long the IMDB bio has been online; the WP article may the older). Schwede 66 08:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that still makes it a copyvio... unless attributed as creative commons, which to my knowledge IMDB is not. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Schwede66. The subject might have good sources in the future. The current state of the article and my inability to churn up RS result in a delete being suggested by me out here. Lourdes 05:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete so poorly formatted as to not be an article, plus all the ^above. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 23:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISCOWA[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP. I could not locate any reliable sources to support the claims being made int he article. No references were provided in the article. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam of no value to the project. Largely uncited and content is strictly advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've come up with many sources quoting their conferences and research papers. Even stuff they've done with European Commission. But no significant coverage about the organization per se. Lourdes 05:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources, poorly written, and this is the En wiki, not the NL wiki. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 23:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per WP:G5 — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Problem Solving[edit]

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

Promotional article, the subject of which - a series of books - does not appear to meet the GNG. Single reference in the article claims to point to a non-notable award won by the author, but when I attempted to access the page, the site returned an error stating the page could not be found. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as the clear solution. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional cruft for a non-notable series of books. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard Rusczyk. Doesn't appear to be notable. Adam9007 (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:35, 26 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Oppus[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, has notability warning since July 2011! P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: The article as it stands has one poor source (an insubstantial Q&A) and does not indicate that the subject meets the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Sporadic coverage does indicate (a) name variants, as added above, and (b) that she has sought to become vice-mayor of Tagbilaran ([1]), but even if successful I don't think that position would meet the criteria. AllyD (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. She seems to be a councilor which is way below the province-wide requirements of WP:POLITICIAN --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails POLITICIAN. If some evidence was available of higher postings, that would have been good. I couldn't find any such. Lourdes 05:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per POLITICIAN and lack of N and sources.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 03:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin Centre[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. shopping centres are not inherently notable. Of the gnews coverage there are 2 articles about an associated residential development which is quite routine given that almost every shopping centre is looking to expand or have a residential redevelopment. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG. Non-notable shopping mall. Ajf773 (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Our article on Chatswood, New South Wales mentions there being 7 shopping malls, this being one of the smaller ones. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:17, 29 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Collexion[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:TOOSOON. Notice how there is these strange four bullet marks on the bottom left. Is that the signature of a sockpuppet. scope_creep (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local Houston, Texas band formed in 2015, unsigned, one self-released EP in September 2016. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The four bullet points are more likely to be the remnants of a (future) list of external links. — Sam Sailor 14:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 14:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 14:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional and full of fluff. I was unable to find any coverage of this band in reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 29 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 Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant#Objections. Sandstein 20:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human chain against nuclear plant in Turkey[edit]

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

non-notable news item. wikipedia is not a news site. Ysangkok (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No indication that this event merits its own article. Joshualouie711^talk 16:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rationale is "WP is not a news site". Then how can you explain the airplane crashes, earthquakes and other events in WP ? A human chain of more than 100 km with a 20 km unterrupted portion against nuclear plant is always a notable event and surely deserves to be in WP. (By the way how do you account for the other similar events listed in Human chain article in WP) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant#Objections which already contains most of the content. This demonstration is not worthy of a stand-alone article either on size or content grounds (see WP:Splitting): Noyster (talk), 19:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - User:Nedim Ardoğa, who voted "Keep" above, created this article on 26 April 2011‎. On 9 June 2015‎, User:Sekicho merged the content verbatim into Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant. At that point, this article was redundant and should have been deleted and converted into a redirect. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 29 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Griscom[edit]

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

Fails GNG as a subject not covered substantially in multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability. Claim that "Nerve" magazine was one of the first online magazines is a self-made claim, not bolstered by independent coverage. Article subject has been previously deleted at AfD. Carrite (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as in 2010; not a resume hosting service. ~~Salt too, to avoid recreation this being the third AfD~~. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject has a chapter devoted in the book by Wharton professor Adam Grant called Originals, a chapter which has been covered by Forbes, Huffington Post, Guardian (Chapter 3 to be precise).[2][3][4] The subject's life has been covered by CNN Money, Harvard Business Review et al. I'd like to hear the comments of delete !voters or the nominator on these sources. Thanks. Lourdes 18:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time to allow for judgement of the sources posted today. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I've stricken my "salt" vote but the article is still promotional and notability is questionable, even after reviewing the book results where the subject is mentioned, but rather superficially. The three articles listed are about the book. The book looks notable, but not every person in it may be notable. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON still. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman hi. The subject here is a journalist. He has created at least two notable works/online magazines: Nerve.com & Babble.com. As per WP:JOURNALIST: A subject may be notable if "the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...] In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book [...]) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." In my opinion, this subject qualifies very easily per this. The Wharton professor's book dedicates a full chapter to him and to his creations. Multiple periodicals and journals, like CNN Money, Harvard Business Review have reviewed the subject and his work too. Why would you disregard coverage like these? What would be your viewpoint about WP:JOURNALIST? And another query: Which lines are promotional in the article, as per you? We can delete those lines quite easily, as I would say the article in its current state does not look overly promotional except for maybe two lines. Waiting for your response. Thanks. Lourdes 03:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I've not looked at the subject under WP:JOURNALIST but as a businessman instead (that's how he's being covered in the book). The reason I'd be hesitant to go with a keep is that I'm not sure that the two web sites are notable themselves. I removed a bunch of 'cruft from one of them: diff. So it looks more like a promotional cluster, rather than notable subjects in their own right. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks K.e.coffman. WP:JOURNALIST does not require the work created to be notable but only well-known, a much lower qualification than notable. What matters to WP:JOURNALIST is whether the work has been the primary subject of even a single book (or of other sources). In this case, the work created by the subject is well known (whether or not notable) and has been covered by a book – this is almost a copybook example of WP:JOURNALIST's application. What might be your views on this? Thanks once more. Lourdes 07:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 29 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 as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hickok45[edit]

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

Comment - The article is nothing more than an ad for the YouTube channel that is profiting WP:PROMOTION because the article does not have notability WP:N.Wikiinfomation (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions of bad faith against other Wikipedians won't serve you well here. As I said on the article talk page, you're not off to a very good start in your two short months on Wikipedia. And as I mentioned on your talk page (which you blanked), you need to spend more time editing here and becoming familiar with policies, guidelines and the culture. Based on your comment above, you admit you have filed this based on an assumption of bad faith. Then you repeat the claim of lack of notability, yet the multiple reliable sources in the article contradict you. Simply put, you don't have any idea what you're doing here and it's becoming disruptive. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above by User:The Master was removed, with no edit summary, by User:Wikiinfomation in this edit 11:00, 26 January 2017. Note that Wikiinfomation simultaneously rewrote their Comment - Some of the creators of the page obviously had a profit driven agenda and may or may not have been biased towards the subject WP:NPOV but the subject is not notable Wikipedia:Notability enough to have its own article. as Delete - The article is nothing more than a ad for the YouTube channel that is making profiting WP:PROMOTION because the article does not have notability WP:N. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Corrected my own misspelling of Wikiinfomation. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and as stated above I am new and learning the process but looking at it from my perspective I have someone saying it's wrong, then I fix it, then it's disruptive that I fixed it?...Reading rules...be kind to new editors this link. WP:KIND...Wikiinfomation (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder; I shall endeavour to be kind to new editors. ¶ If you say something and later realize that it was mistaken, then yes it is indeed disruptive to remove or alter it. You should instead let it stand and make it clear that you realize that it was mistaken. (For details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No legitimate policy-based rationale for deletion or supportive evidence thereof. The article is factual, does not contain overtly promotional language, and contains multiple reliable sources from industry-specific sources as well as others. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hickok45 satisfies the requirements of GNG. Closing admin please note that the submitter has voted twice. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GNG is met, as well as the first criteria under WP:WEBCRIT. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Wikiinfomation: Other people's edits of your comments here accord with their understanding of a set of guidelines that set out extremely strict constraints on what editing of comments (even your own) is possible. You'll find these guidelines here. Please either: (A) read these guidelines, digest them, and edit only in accordance with them; or (B) stop tampering with anybody's comments (including your own). If you realize that you want to amend your earlier comment, the best way is to leave it just as it is and to add a signed, dated amendation. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprised that Youtube channels are notable, but they are. This article has plenty of sources. And there are lots of other articles on channels. See Category:YouTube channels. Felsic2 (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right I guess it is permitted even though personally I don't think it's encyclopedic material, I hope Wikipedia is ready for the 1 billion YouTube users when they all find out.Wikiinfomation (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These discussions aren't about personal opinion, they're about the various notability guidelines. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right and my opinion is that it's not notable but for some unknown reason as pointed out above by Felsic2 they are allowing it so I changed my "delete" to "comment" because editors opinions don't matter.Wikiinfomation (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to take it personally. The subject of the article meets the General Notability Guideline. It's that simple - it's not some sort of insult. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that against you personally but Wikipedia is what is at risk and it's policies need to change. Haven't any of you seen this? It's only a matter of time and all of this could be gone.Wikiinfomation (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for attempts to change Wikipedia's policies. There are places for doing that. But before essaying policy revision, look at two guidelines: WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. Suggest improvements on the talk page of each (and not here). -- Hoary (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in RS appears sufficient to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mentioned in a number of third party sources and meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 29 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9.1x20 RUCM[edit]

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

Article specifically states there are no reliable sources available, Seems WP:TOOSOON and also has quite a bit of WP:PUFFERY in the language. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; meets Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING. Schwede 66 08:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way TOOSOON. "No links or sources available at this stage due to early development and marketing issues" = "I could not even get a specialized journalist to write about me". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON Atlantic306 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have played multiple roles in the same television series[edit]

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

Completely trivial. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial, especially since most of the people included will have had very minor roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To make this list even worse, a large number of these incidents are 1 episode in a show that ran for 4 or more seasons, where an actor played someone meant to be a clone, close relative or look alike of their main role. Others involve having one person play a set of twins.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This list was created to be similar to the movie version; actors playing multiple characters in movies. Robert (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia. —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of WP:INDISCRIMINATE information, and this is listcruft Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial trivia. Strangely, our list notability guidelines are one of the few subsets on Wikipedia that allow even trivia not satisfying notability guidelines to be kept, if the same serves informational purposes. WP:LISTN: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." This list does not qualify even on that. Lourdes 05:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm more concerned that it's unsourced WP:LISTCRUFT more than anything... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have played comic book characters[edit]

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

This is virtually the definition of trivia. These actors only have one thing in common which is having played a character that originated in a different medium. Can you imagine List of actors who have played novel characters? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally trivial. The definition might be on the fuzzy side too. Some characters did exist as comic book ones, but may have other potential roots. Others may be in a movie like say "Batman" or "Superman", but if the specific character is not found in a comic book they would be excluded. Although this is a list, and can deal with such, it is still trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list is not what it says it is. For example, Ben Affleck has played both Batman and Daredevil. This list makes it hard to realize this. It really is "List of comic book roles that have been portrayed in live-action television and film".John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no distinguishing between important roles and minor cameos. See the entries on Willie Lumpkin (a Stan Lee cameo in Fantastic Four) and Nighthawk (who is never identified as such in All Hail the King). Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 26 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; Notability sufficient to pass WP:GNG has been established. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1 --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Ofrosimov[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. XXN, 19:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has an entry in the book "Russian Poets of the 20th Century" [5] and is mentioned in many other books about Russian literature [6], [7], [8]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per available sources, meets GNG: Google Books. Appears to be better known as Yury Ofrosimov. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:GNG standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Vejvančický's sources. I think the nominator should search for the subject using the nom de plume too. Pinging XXN to enquire if they might consider withdrawing this nomination. Thanks. Lourdes 05:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Names of the United States[edit]

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

This article seems to me like a duplicate of the Wiktionary entry for "United States". Propose merging any entries not yet listed there. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was linked to as a main article at List_of_country_names_in_various_languages_(Q–Z)#U (see the entry in left margin @ U.S. section). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I find this article to be duplicating Wiktionary too (another debate though). --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a whole network of these types of articles (i.e., names of countries or cities in various languages). The real question here is whether the content of this article merely duplicates the material already appearing in List of country names in various languages (Q–Z). But the instant article puts that material in a sortable table, whereas the "Q to Z" article forces the reader to search alphabetically by the other-language name (and not by the name of the other language). A good argument could be made for saying that we should have more articles of the instant type, rather than less. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. This is adequately covered by wikt:United States. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is dictionary content. Sandstein 15:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Davis[edit]

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

A non notable politician. Local representative and then a lobbyist, doesn't seem to meet criteria. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact the best claim to fame this guy has (per the lede) is that "He is a long-term ally of controversial Republican National Committeeman Bob Asher, a mainstay in statewide and Montgomery County Republican politics" is evidence of his non-notability. WP:NOTINHERITED springs to mind. AusLondonder (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to the article, the highest political office he's personally held is on a smalltown municipal council, which is not an WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so he is not more notable than the norm for smalltown municipal councillors just because he's "associated" with a more nationally notable figure. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NPOL in that he held no national or state-wide position, and the references are nearly all from The Insider, a Pennsylvania political newsletter, so fails WP:GNG too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL. Fails GNG/BASIC too. Lourdes 05:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National anthems of European Union member states[edit]

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

Pointless arbitrary list. As pointless as Anthems of NATO member states or Anthems of African states, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a list of loosely associated items. TimothyJosephWood 18:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural oppose, for now I'm sorry, but the article has not been tagged for deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Forgot to click "save"; bot tagged it already. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So this is basically a fork of List of national anthems? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Ajf773 (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep, satisfying two of the three criteria established per WP:CSC: Every entry meets the notability criteria and it's a "short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group". Diego (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You are citing the section "Common selection criteria", i.e., these criteria are for list content, not for article existence. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets the criteria for encyclopedic relevence. It is not a "list of loosely associated items" either as the list contents are all clearly associated as being the national anthems of countries of the EU. Also agree with Diego that this list meets the criteria at WP:CSC. In response to Staszek Lem's comment that the list is pointless with examples of Anthems of NATO member states, please note the existence of articles such as List of anthems of non-sovereign countries, regions and territories, List of anthems of Venezuela, National anthems of the Soviet Union and Union Republics and tons of others. As to whether the article meets WP:GNG, the criteria is not original research and many references can be found to indicate that this is a valid collection/list such as albums covering the same topic or papers listing and discussing the anthems. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally an invalid argument in AfD. "Venezuela anthems" is clearly a single topic, while "non-couverweign countries anthems" is clearly a loose collection, ripe for AfD. A rule of thumb for lists is to check whether some reliable sources considered such kind of lists. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason to keep the article. I used the examples to counter the original nom's argument of how articles like it *don't* exist by pointing out that they do. I provided a reference to show that it is a topic that exists in third party publications and therefore it is not an invention of the original author. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:NOTGALLERY as it is just a collection of media files without encyclopedic context. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 22:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fail WP:NOTGALLERY as there is "accompanying text" and context. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: This article fails WP:NOTDIR by being an non-enclyopedic cross category (#6), a list/repository of loosely related items in this case being anthems of European Union member states (#1), and a simple listing with no context information (#7). This also would be more useful on Commons as a category to organize media there. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 15:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the strongest argument I've seen is that it is a "fork" or "subcategory" of List of national anthems. The article could very easily be expanded by including more information on the anthems such as date it was written, origins, etc. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:28, 29 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Velazquez[edit]

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

I don't think the subject is notable per WP:GNG. The content is the work of User:Highflyerzone and I suspect a close connection to the subject and possible autobiography. This is one of those articles that cites a lot of sources, but those sources do little more than prove the subject exists. They do not establish the significant coverage required for GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely incorrect with your assumption, this article is suitable for inclusion so I dispute your claims User:Muboshgu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highflyerzone (talk • contribs) 13:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Same subject was once deleted under Falcon Coperis on a prod with the same GNG concerns. MPJ-DK 15:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well whaddyaknow. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 03:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT, lots of mentions but no substantial reliable sources. "Falcon Coperis" is also a non-notable wrestler. Reads like an autobiography and is almost the whole editing input of User:Highflyerzone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY - In response to User:Cwmhiraeth and their vote for a DELETE, YES User:Highflyerzone wrote the article and YES Wikipedia asked for more details so what was known was added, Wikipedia is driven by community contributions and I don't know what was on here prior, I do know what I added,which in my opinion is suitable for inclusion, this is why I put the time in to add it and will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Let me note that the entertainment and business part of that article is what is notable not the wrestling part of it. comment added by Highflyerzone (talk • contribs) 09:35, 30 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 opinion by Lucifero4 doesn't seem to make any sense and is disregarded, leaving us with only one "keep" opinion. Sandstein 15:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Handedness of Presidents of the United States[edit]

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

Nothing but an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Except for athletes like baseball players, whether a subject is left-handed or right-handed is pure trivia, and not at all something these men are prominently noted for. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A prior AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidents by handedness, resulted in a keep consensus on 30 October 2008.
Keep. Trivia is in the eye (or hands) of the beholder. This subject, including discussions about its possible significance, has been amply discussed in reliable sources as shown in the article and in the 2008 AfD discussion, passes GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one AFD closed as keep doesn't automatically mean it should still be kept. Per WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we shouldn't have excessive listings on Wikipedia. Sourcing is an entirely moot point in this case since whether a president was left-handed or right-handed carries no real significance. In other words, it's not something they're really noted for. I seriously doubt this trait is among the first things that come to most peoples' minds (if ever at all) when they think about a president. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not a defining characteristic of a President and a good deal of WP:SYNTH about handedness, too. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From a statistical standpoint, it looks like something's going on, but what it is, we don't know ...aaand when we find out what that is, it may be a reasonable topic for an article. Otherwise, this is about as meaningful and encyclopedic as Eye color of US Presidents, Astrological signs of US Presidents, or Blood types of US Presidents, and only slightly more useless than List of US Presidents by race. TimothyJosephWood 18:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial and non-defining. Listcruft anyone? AusLondonder (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia and therefore not meriting its own article. Joshualouie711^talk 21:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a left handed more chanche to become a US president then a right handed? User:Lucifero4

Hard to say, but I'm certain that nobody votes for candidates on the basis of being left-handed or right-handed. Too superfluous of a factor. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are left handed clever then right handed?If the answer is yes they more chenche to become US president.User:Lucifero4

Delete. Indiscriminate trivia, which has nothing whatsoever to do with what's important about US presidents. If and when somebody can actually show reliably sourced evidence of a real correlation between handedness and political acumen, then there might be a basis for this — but if "From a statistical standpoint, it looks like something's going on, but what it is, we don't know", then it's just random trivia. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate trivia. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:10, 30 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Munyeta[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The article claims that he's a magical prophet who can perform divine miracles, so even if this article passes, it needs major cleanup to remove the bogus crap. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Might be something out there helping with notability, but I have my doubts. South Nashua (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any sources that were wholly independent of the belief that Munyeta is a prophet with divine powers. Zambian "news" sources appear to give credulous and uncritical treatment to the subject. It's not possible to build an NPOV encyclopedia article from those. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete I had the same experience looking into this as did LL: the closest thing I could come to was a story about him being jailed which also flatly stated that he is "known by his accurate prophecies both local and international, unheard miracles, signs and wonders and timely messages" [9], and I couldn't find out who the publisher of this was or whether they have a connection to Munyeta. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the sources seem very slim, and in any case the article probably needs a good WP:TNT even if it were notable. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete no serious sources beyond unverifiable afro-paparazzi hype. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weak and credulous sources. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:38, 27 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House of Ruello[edit]

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

Contested PROD. There are no sources to support this, nor will there be, as there is no such thing as the "House of Ruello" in the Wikipedia sense, i.e., a single noble family. This is just a collection of a few broadly similar names pulled together at random. There is not even enough here to form the basis of a surname page, as the names mentioned here are different (Ruellan, Ruello, [du] Ruel). Eustachiusz (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eustachiusz (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. Borders on hoax. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...just delete. SNOW delete. TimothyJosephWood 13:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Incoherent mess. Choess (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given the information presented, the best chance at verifiability seems to be a purely trivial mention. Not suitable for this project. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually would have !voted keep if this had been a game of thrones house. This one doesn't make the mark. The nom makes a strong point for deletion, which I accept. Lourdes 05:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newry Junior Chamber[edit]

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

Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG (the 3 or 4 news mentions are limited in scope, not focused specifically on the subject, and of the "passing mention" variety). Nor does it seem to meet WP:NONPROFIT (not "national or international in scale" - in fact by definition and per lead is a local group with a small number of members). In short, doesn't seem to meet either the general NN criteria (for coverage), or the org/non-profit criteria (for scope). Guliolopez (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, and so fundamentally promotional that WP:TNT would be necessary even if it met WP:NONPROFIT and WP:RS could be found. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recently, I've come across many not for profit organizations on the Afd desk. These organizations do credible work in their space, and have considerable mentions with respect to the conferences/events/competitions they hold and the awards they give. Unfortunately, while media reports on these events et al, they fail to report on the organization itself. This results in a strange situation, where while my personal opinion would be to keep some of these non-profits for informational purposes, they don't qualify on our notability guidelines, either for organizations or for non-profits. I would personally prefer a newer addition to the NONPROFIT guideline to enable some kind of leeway as is given to higher level schools or to state/country level political parties, where, even if only trivial mentions are there, precedent tends towards keeping the articles. Till such guidelines become operational, it's tough to !vote keep. Thanks. Lourdes 05:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Smith (footballer, born 1998)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Giant and Fenix down. Repeating what they've mentioned, the subject doesn't qualify on either the general or sports related guidelines. I've tried to be the devil's advocate in the past on such and similar articles and have !voted keep, after finding sources. Here, there isn't coverage I could find to defend the subject. Thanks. Lourdes 05:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilii Sarenko[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN. Unsourced article since 2005. XXN, 15:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements and has zero coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and NMUSICIAN DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:03, 30 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) 12:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Beale (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

This person has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources apart from the tax fraud case (including the conspiracy charge); the subject fails WP:CRIME in that they are not a "renowned national or international figure", nor was either their fraud or conspiracy conviction a "well-documented historic event".

Note: Since the article was apparently ineligible for proposed deletion, I am re-listing the discussion. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to me WP:CRIMINAL applies. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no way he meets WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom. Subject fails WP:CRIME. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRIME. Lourdes 05:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Alexander Barvinok[edit]

The result was keep (non-admin closure). J 947 05:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unproven notability. Does not meet WP:NPROF. XXN, 15:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Widely cited according to GS (WP:PROF#C1), and fellowship of the American Mathematical Society passes WP:PROF#C3 [10]. – Joe (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly cited in low cited field. Why on earth should he be expected to meet WP:NPROF? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I see that the nominator has recently created a lot of AfDs of people with Russian names. Does he have a POV? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I think he passes WP:PROF#C1 but the pass of #C3 is clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- enough hits in Google books to convince me of notability. Also passes WP:AUTHOR with multiple published works, with sufficient library holdings: Worldcat Identities. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've argued with k.e.coffman in the past on Afds. So it's a surprise seeing me on the same side as them. But coffman makes the right points - the subject qualifies on both PROF and AUTHOR. Lourdes 05:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SnappCloud[edit]

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

irrelevant company(no working website either), reads as an ad. JerrySa1 (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably GS11 but fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG and is blatent promotion. Also, doesn't look like the company even exists any longer. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:47, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. Highbeam returns a couple of passing mentions in start-up lists from 2011-12, which at least verifies the company's existence, but I am seeing nothing to suggest notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 17:19, 25 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. So Why 21:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Kovalev (actor)[edit]

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

Lack of notability; does not meet WP:NACTOR (has played only few roles, according to imdb and kinopisk). XXN, 14:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NACTOR. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:56, 25 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 (twice). (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Adamo[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. All the other sources are passing mentions or listings. Only coverage I can find is below, neither of which are in the article. ^[1], ^[2] Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete created by a one edit editor. Looks like blatant self promotion. claims for notability are unremarkable . LibStar (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/02/accountant_accused_of_stealing_from_client_gets_probation.html Accountant accused of stealing from clients gets probation
^ http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2013/07/accountant_from_roxbury_accused_of_stealing_66420_from_client.html Accountant accused of stealing from clients

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If this is again recreated without sources, it'll be a prime candidate for G4 redeletion and salting which can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ch Bilal Pmln[edit]

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

Wikipedia:BLPPROD removed eight times now despite the concern not being addressed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt Fails BLP standard, subverting it really and subsequently WP:BIO] hence WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear webhost misuse. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not what Wikipedia was meant for. --Gachangi (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find source (although I've done only a super quick Google search; if someone can churn up anything else, then my next statement applies). If there are reliable sources, the subject's article can be recreated in the future. Right now, it's clearly not required on Wikipedia. Thanks. Lourdes 05:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per G3. Will salt. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David and Mr. Greyling[edit]

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

Hoax article repeatedly recreated. Suggest deletion & salting of title. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:41, 25 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 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. So Why 21:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton Supreme Court candidates[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article covers mostly media speculation about which judges might be appointed by Hillary Clinton if she became President. She did not herself communicate on this issue during her campaign and she wasn't elected, so there is nothing to report. The whole article is WP:CRYSTAL and has no chance to be expanded. — JFG ^talk 12:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to Russian Language Wikipedia. And darn, I was on her short list according to my tea leaves and other reliable pollsters. Randy Kryn 12:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016#Platform and add a line or two there about the statements that she made about the kind of Supreme Court candidates she would like to appoint. There are some sources in the article to that effect, which can be incorporated. bd2412 T 13:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What about doing so to Planned presidential transition of Hillary Clinton instead? Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is a misunderstanding of the scope of a United States presidential transition, which involves Executive Branch appointments; not Judicial appointments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm not seeing how it is an either/or situation. The Supreme Court candidates are unrelated to a planned transition. bd2412 T 00:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 There's lots of speculation here, but not enough to merit a standalone article. Trim significantly and merge the relevant and encyclopedic details to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Alansohn (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – As nominator, I'm fine with merging whatever can be salvaged into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. — JFG ^talk 18:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. No redirect necessary. TROUT whoever created this POV fork. That first AFD is a shining example of the way campaign enthusiasms can overwhelm process in the heat of political campaigns at poorly attended AFDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If any material is merged, the redirect will also maintain the edit history behind that material. As for the article itself, these were simultaneously created for both candidates in response to a unique historical situation. For the winning candidate, this turned out to be a very good idea. bd2412 T 12:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 per WP:PAGEDECIDE; it is the best place to host this information. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:34, 30 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 Nomination withdrawn. The only delete-!vote said they only !voted that way because of the state the article was in at the time and he indicated the wish to work on the article instead after E.M.Gregory's edits. Regards So Why 21:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Marsh[edit]

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

Nomination Withdrawn - based on these references identified by @E.M.Gregory: Flat Out (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I haven't found anything significant in independent sources apart from the newspaper article already cited, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.~~ Flat Out (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. Certainly seems to be a very successful firm, with significant and numerous mentions in regard to its projects, but seems to fail technical GNG, having very few IRS specifically about the company itself. I would be happy if someone more familiar with the subject matter could dig out some better references. Aoziwe (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep (for now) -- appears to be well known firm. For example, they received the "National Landscape Architecture Awards" from the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, which may significant or "you scratch my back" type of award: link; not sure. Some of their projects appear to be notable link; their approach to the project is briefly discussed. I wonder if architects are more like academics -- notable for the work they have done? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keyed Wood + Marsh + architects into a news archive search on proquest and gots plenty of RS to support notability. Many of their buildings are important enough to be reviewed by architecture critics in major newspapers, they therefore pass WP:CREATIVE much as would a writer with widely-reviewed books. I added one such review to the section on the building.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Can you post a couple of handfuls of relevant urls please here or on my talk page - I might have a go at putting more depth into the article. Aoziwe (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, I was using Proquest, and it is paywalled. So, I just repeated my search thus: Wood Marsh architects site:theage.com.au/ - Bingo! No paywall! (at least I think so, I access the web through aome powerful search engines, and am sometimes mistaken about what it open access) I chose to search The Age and not not some other big city Australian paper simply because it is the paper that ran the review I had added to the page. The results of that search, here:[11] are persuasive.@Aoziwe:. I imagine other papers have similar or more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dukat (Star Trek)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). References are to primary sources (almost entirely startrek.com website). No indication of importance (no non-primary sources discussing importance, reception). I an sure we could find a few sentences discussing him in passing in reviews of DS9 episodes, etc., but unless someone can dig out a reliable, in-depth, non-primary treatment of the character, I am afraid he will still fail said notability policies. While we could consider merging it to List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, that list is a repository of otherwise non-notable content and would likely fail AfD itself. As this kind of topic is much better covered by Memory Alpha anyway, I think we should simply consider deletion of this, as a non-notable fictional character. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if delete is decided upon then anything that is retained might be better here in the Deep Space Nine article as it already mentions Dukat? Dunarc (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of recurring Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters#Dukat. He is one of the major villains, perhaps the archvillain, of the series. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

Keep While the current issue only references the one RS (DS9 companion), he is discussed in multiple academic books and articles. It's kind of puzzling that the nominator apparently has no clue how much academic commentary science fiction (a genre itself rife with social commentary) television shows pick up over time. Same thing goes for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, BSG, and even relatively "fluff" shows like Doctor Who. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject of major plotlines on the show he probably deserves his own article rather than being relegated to the "list of..." article. Artw (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the resources provided by Jclemens, and I would imagine there are more upon further investigation. Again, the argument that "this kind of topic is much better covered by Memory Alpha anyway" is not a valid point of discussion for AfD as the emphasis should be placed on whether or not this article is notable and can be supported through outside sources, which Jclemens as shown in the above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character arc that Dukat went through during DS9 has led to a large number of scholary articles generated as described by Jclemens above and a wide range of specific coverage in books covering the series. In fact, he's probably got greater coverage than some of the main characters. Miyagawa (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. BOZ (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jclemens. The sources are acceptable; so is the logic to keep. Lourdes 05:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Fontaine[edit]

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

Yes, this is a long article about a minor (secondary) recurring character from ST franchise that has a GA status. Sadly, GA criteria for some weird reason do not include meeting notability, and this is a major problem here. The lenghty section on appearance, concept, development, etc. are based on primary sources: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, some episodes, as well as even Memory Alpha, a wiki (and other wikis are not allowed as sources for Wikipedia, something that should've been picked up in a GA review because reliability of sources IS a GA criteria...). Then we get to the 'do or die' section, ie. reception, or the two short paragraphs. First, not a single source deals with the topic (character of Vic) directly. They simply mention him in passing, in few senences at best, a bit more if they are reviews of episodes in which he appears and plays a more significant role. While we could consider merging it to List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, that list is a repository of otherwise non-notable content and would likely fail AfD itself. As this kind of topic is much better covered by Memory Alpha anyway, I think we should simply consider deletion of this, as a non-notable fictional character. PS. I am a Trekkie myself, I like Vic, but it doesn't change the fact I don't think this kind of non-notable topic has a place here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep The DS9 companion is an independent RS, as are tor.com, io9, the AV Club, and Den of Geek. All the other references appear to be used appropriately, but even if some of them were eliminated, the GNG is met by a mile. Jclemens (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, sources not currently appearing in the article include a peer reviewed article hosted on ed.gov, [12], [13] for three separate independent RS mentions. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the character is a semi-major one in a major TV series and the article includes good detail. It would be a shame to lose it from Wikipedia. Because of the article's detail and the characters significance to the series, I don't think merging would be appropriate. The book source seems reasonable, even if it is a little insular. I'm inclined to think that removing the page would be a net loss to the encyclopedia. Mortee (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article has several independent, reliable sources that support its existence, and the sources provided by Jclemens further supports this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I only ever expanded this from a redirect on the basis of having sufficient sources to evidence notability. The DS9 companion is an officially licenced work, but it is not a primary source. The authors are one step removed from the process, as in they spoke with the person(s) involved with production. That is the definition of a secondary source. Within this source there is a section specifically on the creation of this character. Unusually in the article there is a reference to Memory Alpha - this is because they've archived an AOL Chat on that website which isn't available elsewhere, but this isn't part of Memory Alpha which is user generated. Miyagawa (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. BOZ (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just coming from another Afd supporting Jclemens sources and their argument. The story is the same here. Per Jclemens, I support keeping this article. Lourdes 05:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 21:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny O[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. Badly written article, unsourced content. Patient Zero^talk 13:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well he's had a charting single, so that gets over the bar per WP:MUSICBIO number 2. But it needs sources which are proving a little hard to find as there's some youtuber tween with the same name out there now. ValarianB (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention that - thanks for bringing up Johnny Orlando ValarianB. Apparently this BLP's subject's real name is Johnny Ortiz though, but people were getting confused between the two; see the page edit history. Patient Zero^talk 21:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Admittedly, I'm struggling to locate significant coverage in reliable sources. However, I added references for this artist's chart appearances, which at least demonstrates that he meets WP:MUSICBIO #2. Given that, I'm inclined to favor keeping rather than deleting this. Gongshow talk 21:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gongshow, AGF his analysis that he meets Musicbio2. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 25 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Student[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) requirement. Student newspaper at a major university, but I don't see what makes it pass said policies. It doesn't seem to have any major impact, etc. Yes, it won some kind of an award ([14]), but that award doesn't seem major. This kind of entity doesn't deserve an independent aticle, IMHO, but at best a brief mention (at Oxford University, perhaps, that it exits. Regarding circulation, please note that circulation numbers are not considered relevant to notability, since it is difficult to compare them and say what is high, what is low (just like, let's say, the size of an organization is not a criteria for notability of an organization). Also, circulation numbers for this publication are sourced to primary source that has a clear purpose of advertising/promotion, so their reliability is hardly full-proof (another reason most data on circulation, as self-reported number which inflation is in the interest of the reporting source, is generally dubious). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in reliable sources shown in the article, more in Google searches, passes GNG. And I might add that I do not think it's a desirable goal to reduce Wikipedia's coverage of bona fide media sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate which coverage is reliable? Because almost all coverage is from self-published sources, i.e. the said student newspaper itself.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are multiple references in the footnotes to "real" newspapers, although some of these links appear to be broken. In addition, Google shows coverage of the paper's activities in, for example, the BBC [15], The Guardian [16], The Register [17], Times Higher Education [18][19], and more. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Guardian award is sufficient to pass Periodicals criterion 2. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Oxford Student, very much like the Cherwell or the Isis, is a point of reference of student life at Oxford. Deleting this article would not only be illogical, considering that its circulation is larger than say the most-circulated national newspaper in Liechtenstein (which obviously has an article too), but it would also bring immense discomfort to those who research the third oldest university in the world, its unique student culture, and its history. For all such researches the student media within the University are an invaluable source of information. I would furthermore like to stress out that this article has been suggested for deletion by the same person who has on multiple occasions suggested the deletion the Oxford University Russian Club's page, in what seems to be a deliberate attempt to discredit the article's references, which include "The Oxford Student". User:J31ox 11:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J31ox (talk • contribs)
Keep. Enough coverage in reliable sources, BBC, Telegraph, to show notability Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided are quite acceptable. Maybe the nom can consider withdrawing this Afd. Lourdes 05:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Polish Society[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. The best I see (except primary self-published sources) are mentions in passing. One mainstream Polish newspaper called it "the most prestigious Polish student organization in the UK", [20], but this single mention in passing can hardly suffice to keep this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no relevant sources cited and there is little documentation warranting this Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BotmanJWPM (talk • contribs) 18:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike the pages of other student associations at the University of Oxford, this club has no references that denote any kind of notability of its members, or its events. Both of the other two societies that have a Wikipedia article - the German and the Russian ones - have a much better reference section. User:J31ox 11.30, 26 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J31ox (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spirits of the Jaguar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable TV documentary, Found a few mentions but nothing substantial, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 04:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Nordic Nightfury who prev nominated it. –Davey2010^Talk 04:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per last AfD Nördic Nightfury 09:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but that last AFD with counted votes by only two persons (yourself and this nominator) resulted in no-consensus, not delete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:11, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NRVE and WP:NEXIST . Most notable ever? Nope. But notable enough through coverage and commentary in suitable independent reliable sources? Yes. Sorry, but not using available sources of commentary and review does not mean automatically non-notable... it means the project benefits from work not deletion. [21], [22] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commentaries aren't reliable sources atleast as far as I'm aware, Found a book or 2 but other than that there's nothing to establish notability, FWIW I've sourced far less known stuff than this so it can be done however in this case it can't be done because it's not notable. –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the commentary or analysis is in reliable sources, WP:NF can be met. We do not judge the content of the commentary or analysis. Only the existence of it. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a NYTimes review. Combined with the BBC Atlas one from above [23], I think we have minimum notability. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. I am sorry, but this NYT review is anything but such, it is a mention in passing, 1-2 sentences, and I am not even sure the article looks reliable. Since we cannot find anything except a single review on DVDTalk, I am afraid it fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). A merge to BBC Atlas of the Natural World may be best. Frankly, probably all of the series parts (episodes) fail notability and should be merged there. If we add their refs together, they may be sufficient to keep the article on the documentary series. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given by Schmidt. Ouseriv (talk) 06:20, 31 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. At this point, there doesn't seem to be any particular consensus on this low-traffic AfD. There is a slight numerical majority of keep !votes and User:Julle has brought some sources in Swedish. However, it has not been verified if these sources can support the content. User:LibStar's query about third party coverage in newspapers has also not been answered.

As there have already been 2 relists with low participation (and there is a possibility that sources may not be in English), this is a tentative close as a no consensus, with a hope that editors will try to find sources. Should no sources be found, there is no prejudice against re-nominating this again in 3-6 months.

On a side note, it would also be worth looking into WP:ATD and see if it is possible to selectively merge this article to any acceptable target. I notice that a similar article Swedish Trade and Invest Council exists and it would be worth discussing if it should be merged into a single article. (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Mission in Sweden[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. trade missions as de facto embassies are not inherently notable. most of the sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coverage that does exist is routine and not generally independent, so I don't see GNG here. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:49, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is generally not in English (as could be expected for a Chinese-Swedish subect) – "駐瑞典台北代表團" seems to mainly be of the English sort when it comes to coverage, but there's a bit in Swedish if we look for "Taiwans ambassad", "Taiwans representation", "Taiwans representationskontor", "Taipeis representationskontor" or "Taipeis ekonomiska och kulturella representationskontor". /Julle (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please list actual websites of these sources. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started expanding the article a bit, adding a couple of sources etc (and removing less reliable, as well as making sure they don't look like they cover more than they do). /Julle (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the references still merely confirm it exists and who held the post. I don't see significant coverage in third party sources like newspapers. LibStar (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep per Julle, though I can't independently verify the contents of the sources as I can't read Swedish. Deryck C. 17:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Julle's expansion/addition of sources.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:15, 25 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 The Legend of Qin characters. Kurykh (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xiang Shaoyu[edit]

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

Anime character, written in in-universe style. No reliable references. Probably best to merge to List of The Legend of Qin characters. Timmyshin (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Also from the same TV series:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wouldn't be opposed to merging them all; has this been attempted? Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of The Legend of Qin characters. These fictional characters are not independently notable. -Zanhe (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of The Legend of Qin characters per Zanhe. Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Barclay[edit]

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

Supporting character in Star Trek. Quite an amusing character, I remember him well, but as written, this clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and I cannot find any independent sources which would help to establish notability. There are some mentions in passing, of course, since ST is a major franchise, but I don't see any independent (non-primary) works about him (to be clear, independent/non-primary means - other than in Star Trek books, encyclopedias, almanaces, etc.). PS. Could be perhaps merged to List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation, through I have doubts about the notability of that list in the first place... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep click the 'scholar' link above, find multiple independent RS discussing this fictional character in the context of media depictions of stuttering. WP:GNG met, without even having to disagree with the spurious definitions of non-primary sourcing advanced by the nominator. Jclemens (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Here are two examples of sources on studies about the character in the context of stuttering and social anxiety: 1 and 2. This source 3 may also be helpful; it is an episode review, but it focuses on the episode that the character is introduced and includes analysis/reception of the character; the same applies to this website/episode review 4. Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of books, news articles, and papers with information about the character. Also, I disagree with the spurious definition of non-primary sourcing advanced by the nominator. The Steve 08:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's not in a great state, but it does seem that there is some serious discussion of the character from academics and critics. The material discussing his anxieties and stutter is particularly interesting, and would be a valuable addition to the current article. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. BOZ (talk) 03:41, 30 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation[edit]

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

Note to the closing administrator/editor: The nominator has withdrawn the nomination.. Lourdes 15:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I am hereby withdrawing this article from Deletion, as discussed below we have decided to remove the portions that don't meet Wikipedia's instead of blowing it up per WP:TNT. Amin (Talk) 16:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is problematic, and I think we can serve it best, by blowing it up and starting over (WP:TNT).

The problems:

The article relies too much on the primary source of kauffman.org
Some statements have no reference at all
The tone is promotional throughout the article
It contains a lot of data that isn't worthy of being included in an encyclopdia WP:SUMMARY
There are 8 external links within the text, most of them to kauffman.org
Two of the most prominent contributors, @Flip51: and @Juvensophist: have only contributed to the Kauffman Foundation page and the Ewin Kauffman page, and nothing else. Though I don't want to jump to conclusions, I thought it was worth pointing out
The introductory text leaves room for improvement, it just says it's a non-profit from Missouri.

Let me state again, that I do believe there should be a page for the Kauffman foundation on Wikipedia. Though I think the readers are better served by having a shorter page that meets Wikipedia's standards, than a long one that is promotional and not well referenced. Amin (Talk) 10:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and snow close this Afd. The foundation qualifies on notability by even the strictest of standards (if you want, I can list out around 25 reliable sources; but I think you already know that). Just a quick query. If you really want to TNT it, why bring it up to Afd? You can start working on the article and cut out all the spam that you may see. I agree with you that the article requires a lot of editing. But Afd is not the way to do what you are proposing. I'll suggest, just go ahead and edit the article than proceed with this Afd. I don't want you to get dissuaded by my keep vote out here. I'll encourage you to rather withdraw this Afd. Ask me for any assistance in editing the article. Thanks. Lourdes 10:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Amin. Lourdes 10:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes: If you really want to TNT it, why bring it up to Afd?
Because I think it's easier and faster to start over.
I'd like to improve this article, though I think it requires me to remove 75% - 90% of the content, that's why I thought WP:TNT made sense here (I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, I must say).
I have just withdrawn the article from Deletion. I simply removed the Afd notice, hope that's sufficient. Anyways, thanks for weighing in. I will work this article soon Amin (Talk) 15:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amin hi. I think I'll also chip in at the article once you start editing it so it becomes better. And by the way, you don't need to remove that notice from the article's page. Let the administrator/editor who closes this Afd do that. You can undo that edit of yours. What you should do is, just write clearly at the top of this Afd that you are withdrawing the nomination. Thanks. Lourdes 15:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lourdes, I did some editing last night, so feel free to add on it. I'm curious to see those "25 reliable sources" come to life. Did some research and could not find that many. Amin (Talk) 21:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The next handful of days I'll be tied up in fixing the 25 odd references for my Featured List candidate. Next week am on a performance tour. Will get onto sprucing up the sources for this probably after 10 February. Hang around till then. Thanks. Lourdes 05:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would like to see User:Lourdes 25 reliable sources, because we could add them to the article, but I have found at least one (Helmut K. Anheier; Stefan Toepler (24 November 2009). International Encyclopedia of Civil Society. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 649–. ISBN 978-0-387-93996-4.). Now, the article has major problem with sourcing, possibly POV/COI (in the context of WP:NOBLE), but it passes notability, and I do not think the content is as bad as to merit WP:TNT. The article has been tagged with problems, any editor (including the nominator) can try to rewrite/shorten it, removing promotional material if any is present. No need for a nuke IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 25 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. WP:SOFTDELETE as no other opinion has been offered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General Roots[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the criteria for WP:BAND notability, I can't find anything substantial in google news other than a few mentions as an opening act, reviews outside of RS, and some mentions in festival lineups.-Ich (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Ich (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 25 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 Nihilism#Political nihilism. Editors can merge content from history if they're not too nihilistic to bother. Sandstein 20:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political nihilism[edit]

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

The characterization of Nihilism in the lede sentence, and the implication that anarchists or nihilists have anything good to say about capitalism is misleading and false. In addition there was very little relationship between political nihilism and anything else called nihilism. Either this article needs an overhaul or it needs to be deleted. Literally the only relevant material in this article is the quoting of a single political nihilist. Ollyoxenfree (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back or redirect to Nihilism. The stub is so short as to be essentially a mere dictionary definition and does not contribute much to the broader discussion. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect back to Nihilism#Political nihilism, leave the history for whatever use the scanty material might be to a future editor. This brief article has been around a long time but doesn't contribute incrementally to the discussion, and I didn't see anything better in the article history. The GBooks and GScholar results above show many potential sources to expand on the topic, so eventually this article could be split back out again, but right now it's not serving a purpose. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why trouble ourselves over this when all of life is meaningless, knowledge is impossible, reality does not exist and there is no moral or wisdom based standard on which judgment can be based? In short how are we to judge when we float in an existential swamp of delusion? in short, Delete or redirect back to Nihilism#Political nihilism without merge; it adds nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 25 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 Kokkalai. Sandstein 20:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kokkale[edit]

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

The sources are not WP:Reliable. No indication that this is a real geographical area as noted elsewhere (neutrally) and not simply a residential subdivision or a sales tract. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources mention this area only in passing and do not indicate any WP:Notability. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Kokkalai Ref 2 spells it thus and shows it as ward 39, not 35 (ref 1 is a dead link): Noyster (talk), 11:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect there doesn't seem to be anything to merge. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:10, 25 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. WP:G12 Copied from http://www.trapworldhiphop.com/trap-artists/hoodrich-pablo-juan-biography/ NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodrich Pablo Juan[edit]

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

Dan Koehl (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Trivial one-line mentions such as this, but no biographical info of any depth in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:54, 25 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 Transformers (toy line). Sandstein 20:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Power Core Combiners[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel incredibly dumber for reading this. A literal WP:ADVERT product catalog with zero sourcing outside Hasbro.com and fansites. Nate • (chatter) 04:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformers (toy line). Its certainly not notable enough to sustain its own article, and has no sources aside from fansites and now-defunct product pages. But, I doubt this article name is going to be needed for anything else, and as this toy line is included on the "Transformers (toy line)" page already, I think a Redirect would be fine. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformers (toy line) per the IP. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:09, 31 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 Reconciliation (United States Congress). Any relevant content can be reconciled from history without any further vote-a-rama. Sandstein 16:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vote-a-rama[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEO. It's a term bandied about in the last day or so, and likely to never be used again. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not true; see cited Atlantic article from 2013 in the Wikipedia article. The term has been around for a long time, and it's been mentioned in ~10 other Wikipedia articles. It's a procedure that isn't discussed anywhere else on Wikipedia. Ethanbas (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reconciliation (United States Congress), or merge to Reconciliation (United States Congress)#Criticism. I might be bold and merge it soon "without objection" (pardon the pun). Bearian (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with this being redirected and actually merged (new section on article it's redirected to). Ethanbas (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ethanbas, I did so. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also fine with a redir. Primefac (talk) 21:56, 27 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 ~~Kokkalai~~ Phogat sisters. Sandstein 20:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wrong closure, some other article seems to have been stuck in my clipboard. Sandstein 09:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sangita Phogat[edit]

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

Notability is not established by being someones daughter or a junior championship - this was a Prod contested by an IP with no explanation. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She has won the 2016 bronze in the Indian senior national wrestling championship[24] and is the 2016 official Indian national junior wrestling champion. Also, what might be your views in relation to WP:SPORTSPERSON, which mentions that an individual is presumed to be notable "if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor"? Listing out a few sources for your perusal, that seem to make the subject qualify on BASIC:

ESPN news report on Sangita's rivalry with her sister Babita.
NDTV report on Sangita and Babita.
The Times of India report on Sangita and Ritu, her sister.
Hindi newspaper Patrika's report on Sangita's rivalry with Babita.
Huffington Post covering all six sisters (I would consider this only for BASIC rather than for GNG or SNG)
Hindustan Times report, similar to Huffington.

Thanks. Lourdes 13:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I concur with Lourdes and in my view she passes BASIC WP:GNG.FITINDIA (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging PRehse for their view. Thanks. Lourdes 15:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there is an article abut the sisters and the references cited all appear to be in that context - I could see a redirect to Phogat sisters but the subject herself is not independently notable enough for a stand alone article.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe she meets WP:NSPORT because she has never competed at an adult world championship or Olympics. There does seem to be a fair amount of press coverage, although almost all of it is in conjunction with her sisters. I'm wondering if a family article might be more appropriate. Papaursa (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Papaursa, I think a redirect to Phogat sisters, as suggested by PRehse, could be in order here. Lourdes 19:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the link. I like the idea. I missed PRehse's comment. Papaursa (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phogat sisters with no objection to her having her own individual article when/if she has enough competitive success. Papaursa (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phogat sisters. With thanks to the nominator to consider changing his delete assertion, I think the redirect is a wonderful workaround in this case. I'm pinging Fitindia to consider changing their !vote to redirect too (I'm confident they would see the logic in this). Thanks. Lourdes 04:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter hello, would you consider bolding your Redirect suggestion to enable the closing administrator/editor to clearly see the same? Thanks. Lourdes 04:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Lourdes I think am fine with a redirect for now.FITINDIA (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Atheist Agenda[edit]

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

Student organization that seems to have made headlines for a week in 2005 and then disappeared. There are not enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG TM 12:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a couple of other sources on this group, but nothing substantial enough to indicate long-lasting notability. GAB^gab 02:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than a week's coverage in reliable sources. The group has tried various approaches, such as sponsoring a debate and protesting a National Day of Prayer, but nothing generated headlines like their annual "Bibles for porn" exchange. To the 2005 NBC News and XBiz sources cited in the article, add:
- Jason P. Olivarri (9 April 2006). "UTSA Evolution and Creationism debate a see-saw affair". La Prensa de San Antonio. p. 4C.
- Jason P. Olivarri (7 May 2006). "San Antonio Celebrates National Day of Prayer". La Prensa de San Antonio. p. 4C.
- "Atheist Bibles-For-Porn Swap Riles Campus". CBS News. Associated Press. 2 March 2010.
- "Cambian biblias por pornografía en Texas". Notimex (in Spanish). Mexico City. 4 March 2010.
- Nicola Menzie (18 April 2012). "Porn-for-Bibles Campaign Flops: Texas Student Atheists Fail to Attract Attention". The Christian Post.
- Abe Levy (1 November 2013). "Atheist group changing its message". San Antonio Express-News.

This sampling is multiple reliable sources containing significant coverage, so passes WP:ORG. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a third time to allow for a review of sources presented later in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOWFLAKE. Multiple reliable sources confer notability when professional writers describe the subject in some detail. Diego (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Flash in the pan, but a notable flash in the pan per sources. Possibly a rename to the main incident that made them a big deal per BIO1E and related guidelines. Montanabw^(talk) 19:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by analogy with BIO1E. Most coverage cited is in the local press, so doubtless reliable sources but still doubtful notability. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still not convinced of notability? Add five more reliable sources to the eight above:
- "Texas College Campus Divided Over Bible for Porn Campaign". Fox News. 2 March 2010.
- Tedesco, Ashley (3 March 2010). "Smut for Smut: College Students Trading Bibles for Porn". Jewcy.
- "Atheist group tells students to trade their Bibles for porn". Christian Today. London. 4 March 2010.
- Clabough, Raven (3 February 2011). "Texas Atheists Trade Porn for Bibles". The New American.
- Hallowell, Billy (3 April 2012). "Atheist Students Encourage Christians to Exchange Their Bibles for…Pornography". TheBlaze.

Nom's argument is that the organization [only] made headlines for a week in 2005 and there are not enough reliable sources. There are headlines from 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, in at least a dozen different reliable sources.

GAB wrote a couple of other sources, but nothing substantial enough to indicate long-lasting notability. Not counting the two La Prensa pieces, which don't focus primarily on The Athiest Agenda, the other eleven sources range from 127 to 924 words and total over 4,800 words. That is substantial in number and depth. Whether the notability is long-lasting is a fair question. Coverage is spread over six years between 2005 and 2013. That satisfies WP:SUSTAINED. At that point the group changed its name and tactics. It is probable that their less confrontational approach generates less coverage. I haven't looked for any under the new name, but notability is not temporary, so if the group has disappeared from the headlines for the last three years, it shouldn't matter.

Andreas Philopater wrote that most coverage cited is in the local press. Three of the dozen sources are local, although in this case local means the seventh largest city in the United States, with a population of nearly 1.5 million. Next come four notable national media outlets. The sex industry source is admittedly a niche publication. The religious news sources are not as mainstream as The New York Times, but it would be difficult to argue that the national Christian press has a limited audience in the United States. Next are three of the "Big Four" national TV news networks. One of their pieces originated with the Associated Press. The eleventh is a notable news company in the United Kingdom. Finally, there is the official Mexican news agency, whose story was printed in newspapers throughout Mexico and the United States. These plainly satisfy WP:AUD.

Andreas Philopater further suggests that something analagous to WP:BIO1E for people should apply to organizations. The "Smut for smut" campaign was annual, not a one-time affair. There were nine events (plus minor ones, such as sponsoring a debate and protesting a National Day of Prayer, although those were only covered by local press). WP:BLP2E applies. Even if it were one event and if the guideline applied to organizations, WP:BIO1E is about whether the focus of the article should be the event or the person. At most it would support moving the article to "Smut for Smut". It would not support deletion.

I invite TM, GAB, and Andreas Philopater to examine the thirteen sources and consider withdrawing their recommendations to delete. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still only see two sources from 2008 in the article itself. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is true (the two are from 2005, but were added to the article in 2008), but is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions because it is easily surmountable and does not require deletion to fix. If it bothers you, you could copy the eleven sources above into the article. Articles for deletion is not about whether an article doesn't currently satisfy Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but about whether it could never be improved to do so. Deletion is not cleanup. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:14, 26 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 premise of the nomination is for merging, which is outside of the general purview of AfD. A merge discussion can be initiated on an article talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Justice Party leadership election, 2001[edit]

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

Should merge into People's Justice Party (Malaysia). Not notable in its own right Rathfelder (talk) 08:29, 25 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Republic (news channel)[edit]

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

The founder(s) may be notable, but the proposed channel has not launched yet, and notability is not inherited from founders to their enterprises even before they are launched. WP:TOOSOON ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there is enough coverage of the upcoming launch itself to meet notability for now. More sources will come when in time given it is a new venture. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:BCAST. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has received significant and detailed coverage in independent reliable sources which meets WP:GNG as well as this article meets WP:BROADCAST. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:43, 31 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. GNG appears to be clearly met. There is not enough support for a NOTNEWS deletion seems like. Mergers and name changes can still be discussed on the talk page, of course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017 European cold wave[edit]

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

I doubt this is a notable event. Checklist:

Lasting effects N None.

Geographical scope Y That's fulfilled.

Depth of coverage N We don't have an in-depth review so far. Only some short news article.

Duration of coverage N Very short duration of coverage, because it's nothing special.

Diversity of sources Y Well, seems to be fulfilled, although we only have news reports so far. No text books. No scientific articles.

On the other side, this event can be best described as Routine coverage. It's winter. Temperatures drop. That's how it has been for years. Furthermore, Sensationalism may also be the reason for some of the news reports.

All in all, we have more reasons for deleting this article than for keeping it. TheRandomIP (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- In the future, please do not adorn your Afd nominations or comments with label templates, per WP:AFDFORMAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 25 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was closed and that close overturned at DRV. Therefore relisted to allow a full discussion period. (Brrr its cold in my office) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This certainly goes way beyond "Its winter, let's post some pictures of snow in the Daily Mail" coverage. Snow and severe temperatures in places, that do not usually see those iE first snow in 25 years where the last flurry only lasted 30 minutes. Agathoclea (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Winter#Exceptionally_cold_winters where it merits a brief entry. As a free-standing article, it is unsatisfactory because it is ill-defined. Right now, it's still January and it's cold here in London. The newspapers are full of reports about freezing fog, airport closures, inversions, &c. Is this part of the supposed phenomenon or not? How do we tell when this stops being something special and starts being the usual winter weather? The atmosphere is turbulent and chaotic so the news media always have something to say about it every day. Either we should have some broadbrush coverage such as a European equivalent of 2016–17 North American winter or we should stick to clearly named local phenomena like Hurricane Andrew. Andrew D. (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources show that this was not a routine winter event. "Europe's coldest weather in years...";the lowest temperatures for decades in some parts..."; "death and chaos across Europe..."; etc. Reported worldwide. "Still cold here in London" is irrelevant - the article does not describe that, it covers the highly unusual polar air mass ("cold wave") over continental eastern and southern Europe, several hundred miles at least from London, earlier in the month. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London is a notorious example in such cases. But London is in Europe and it's cold and it's January so this fits all the parameters of the page title. If this isn't valid, then what are the exact parameters then? When did this thing start and when did it finish? The article currently gives a start date of 5 Jan but note that this is cited to a forecast and the source seems to be a blog. And there is no stated end-date. Ghmyrtle cites the Guardian as a source but note that the Guardian had another similar story this morning. This says, "A new bout of cold weather across southern Europe ...". So is this the same topic or a new one? Are we going to have a new page every time the Guardian reports the weather somewhere? Please could Ghmyrtle or someone provide a clear definition of what the topic is so that we may understand what we are debating. This should please include an authoritative source which supports the definition, not just a newspaper report. Andrew D. (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the article needs to be improved. If the title is insufficiently precise, it could be moved. Any suggestions? This report of the "polar spell [that] gripped a large swathe of the continent" says that the extreme cold was forecast to abate later in that week (of 11 January), and there seems little suggestion that it is continuing now to the same degree. But all that is a reason to improve the article, not to delete it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient non-routine coverage exists. The article can be renamed if necessary, but it should not be deleted. Lepricavark (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Yes, it clearly seems~~ The question is whether it meets GNG as a bona fide member of Category:Cold waves in Europe and other such categories. Plus, the colourfully adorned nomination rationale that this cold wave needs to and fails to have "Lasting effects" is not policy. I daresay no single weather event ever does. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed my !keep vote because we do need to be on guard against WP:NOTNEWS, and I'll leave it to others to decide if it passes that threshold. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cold wave broke several temperature records as mentioned above and in the article itself, and it did have severe impacts which were reported on worldwide (UK, Singapore, Malaysia, India), especially on migrants and refugees living in camps. These effects can certainly be elaborated upon; a simple search shows the word "refugee" occurs zero times and "migrant" occurs five times in the article. ~ KN2731 {talk} 14:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:NPASR This is from my !vote at DRV. "The close has elements of both SNOW and SK, and the remedy is to overturn the SNOW part of the close. The closer reasonably cites WP:POINT given that the nominator can't decide if the topic fails notability, and is using the AfD process to get assistance from the community to help him decide. WP:NPASR allows the nominator the opportunity to review the deficiencies in the nomination, and if re-nominating, to correct those deficiencies." Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Keiiri (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This cold wave was exceptionally severe, and I think it's worth a special entry. I live in a Mediterranean country, and I don't remember something like this, at least for the last 30 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:1803:3100:3DBD:FD19:F757:195A (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article meets the general notability guidelines and the coldwave was big news in Hellas where such weather phenomena had not been seen for 30-40 years. Andreas Mamoukas (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mateo Herrera[edit]

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

I'm not seeing enough to satisfy our notability guidelines. He's won a couple minor awards, but even those awards aren't notable themselves. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 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 01:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG, with the only source being IMDB, and none of the films being of any major notability. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:46, 25 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. Kurykh (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saara Lamberg[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR. 2 of the links are dead. The third source doesn't even mention her. Only one known role and that was a minor one. Created a single purpose editor so potential self promotion. LibStar (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deadlinks have archives, so sources exist. Google search shows more recent coverage as well. While they all seem to be from the same parent corporation, the fact that these different community papers have each sent their reporters to cover this person multiple times over the years makes me consider them as sufficiently separate sources. Passes the GNG. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a formatted citation for the link listed above.

Shanahan, Brittany (August 20, 2016). "Filmmaker Saara Lamberg aims to bring Innuendo to movie theatres". Diamond Valley Leader. Scenes have been shot in Finland and Melbourne...

Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur there's no actual notability as an actor given the works are simply so few, and the links are only about themselves hence no actual substance for a better convincing article< therefore all we need for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:41, 25 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) 12:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Butt[edit]

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

Not enough notable per WP:BIO.Dearth of sources. Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 16:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 16:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as non notable because the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Xaxing (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Apparently borderline, but nobody wants to advocate keeping, so it's deleted as an uncontested deletion proposal. Sandstein 16:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Ed: Charter Schools, Corruption and the Gülen Movement in America[edit]

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

I see fairly little coverage, mostly in the form of organizations advertising their showings of the film. Doesn't seem to meet WP:N, despite the HuffPo piece. Largoplazo (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The HuffPo piece was part of their blogs, so it wouldn't be seen as a RS on here because it's a SPS essentially, as the HuffPo doesn't really regulate that section of their site. I did find this, but the article on the Daily Sabah gives off the impression that they're not a non-partial site on the topic of the Gulen movement and probably wouldn't be a RS in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this, but I'm getting press release vibes from it for some reason. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Found this and this too, but not sure of how much of a RS the sites are. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So far I only have two in-depth RS, an interview with the Wichita Eagle and an article in the OC Weekly. It's pretty weak sauce, unless any of the above can be used. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see a few points. First, producer Mark Hall is an experienced documentarian and this isn't exactly a local-interest only work. Also, on top of the sources already listed, there is this story in the Houston Press (an alternative weekly).[25] However, I agree that coverage has been a bit sparse and fringe. Given the continued relevance of Gülen and the continued importance of the charter school movement, this film could continue to receive light coverage and eventually meet GNG/point #2 of Wikipedia:Notability (films). Currently, I'm not sure. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:38, 25 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. Maybe worth a note on the pages for the individual songs but I agree he is not notable enough for his own page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Lawrence[edit]

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

This person fails the WP:NFILMMAKER as has only made one feature film that was panned by the critics [26]. There doesn't seem to enough indepth coverage to cover the WP:GNG criteria and merit an article. Domdeparis (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, as one forgotten movie and appearing in Bob Marley videos does not equate notability. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jesse Lawrence didn't 'appear' but 'starred' in three massively popular and now iconic Bob Marley videos. One video on youtube has over 17m views and 34 thousand likes ^[1] For over 10 years there has been speculation and debate on internet forums about the identity of Jesse Lawrence ^[2] and a Wikipedia entry clears things up and makes them official. While his film The Knot was not a favorite among critics, it was reviewed widely, featured a top cast of well known actors including Hollywood A lister Mena Suvari ^[3] received a major theatrical release in the UK and Republic of Ireland and is popular enough among a world wide audience to merit the involvement of various distributors and sales agents ^[4] It also continues to find an audience on the itunes ^[5] and Amazon ^[6] streaming platforms. Jesse is a filmmaker of pedigree who has been picked as one to watch by respected trade magazines like Screen Daily^[7] Two of his shorts were UK Film Council backed - a film fund (now replaced by the BFI) which only awards to the most talented filmmakers across the UK in a highly competitive selection process - and they screened and competed in some of the most lauded and respected international film festivals such as the BFI London Film Festival ^[8] This is a filmmaker who is already notable and whose notoriety will only increase along with his film credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragner5000 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC) note This editor is the creator of the article Domdeparis (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-6g_CdpJs. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://snwmf.com/phorum/read.php?1,18586. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002546/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.randommedia.com/filmmakers/jesse-lawrence/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ https://itunes.apple.com/gb/movie/the-knot-2012/id595228472. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ https://www.amazon.com/Knot-Noel-Clarke/dp/B00IRX3BFS. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_International#2007_writers. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0846032/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Comment The videos are popular because of the songs that were performed by an iconic musician. No one's watching them for Jesse Lawrence; let's not kid ourselves. Anyway, none of the sources you listed here are suitable for Wikipedia (IMDb; a passing mention on randommedia; iTunes; internet forums) and do nothing in establishing notability of the article subject. Actors or directors working with A-listers does not automatically establish notability either, under WP:NOTINHERITED. The Knot (which has a zero rating on Rotten Tomatoes) was not given the green light because of the choice of director, and he hasn't directed anything since. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 02:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Article lacks independent reliable sources. Google and HighBeam searches provides nothing to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 19:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and the references given do not establish notability. IMDB, Wikipedia and Youtube are not WP:RS. Gachangi (talk) 03:42, 29 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amalgamated Dairies[edit]

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

Company fails WP:ORG. Unable to locate anything but local press with announcements about the company. The rest don't add up to WP:CORPDEPTH. Speedy declined and I failed to see that another speedy was declined last year in 2016 (with no improvements since that recommendation). The page would also need a complete rewrite as it reads like the company website would. CNMall41 (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising existing for over 9 years now since the clear SPA, that's all we need for deletion given we're not a business webhost. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I see a few press releases and a couple blurbs in some business directories. Nothing else.Glendoremus (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Couldn't find any noteworthy references. Rogermx (talk) 17:08, 30 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NIT Departments of Management Studies[edit]

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

I have declined both a PROD (which may have been a mistake) and a CSD A7 request (the subject deals with education). That said there is little evidence that this is more than a list of organizations as opposed to an org in its own right. At the moment the article fails WP:V and I am not sure that it even exists as its own entity. Thoughts? Ad Orientem (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and and I too am not sure it even exists as an entity. Even as a list, we already have List of MBA schools in India. --Muhandes (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's not the needed significance we need for notability and an article. SwisterTwister talk 02:28, 30 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Sampson Guy[edit]

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

Sounds like an alright guy, but not really notable. Having a grammar school named after you is the only apparent claim to fame, but that hardly constitutes sufficient noteworthiness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks more like a genealogy than an encyclopedia article, only covered in local-interest and primary sources. No larger or lasting notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Not even clear why the middle school was named after him. Glendoremus (talk) 07:33, 26 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Beale (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources apart from tax fraud conviction; subject fails WP:CRIME in that they are not a "renowned national or international figure" nor was the crime a "well-documented historic event". –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:02, 25 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moates[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:POLITICIAN. Is a clearly WP:PROMO (user page says "Welcome to my site") WP:AUTOBIO. Listing at AfD as a brand new account removed the speedy & I didn't want to start an edit war but IMO should have been A7ed. JamesG5 (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moates is a registered candidate for office in 2020 election for house of representatives in the United States. He's registered with the Federal Election Commission. He serves on the board of directors for American Youth in Politics and has been feature on many news and media outlets. He is feature in TheBlaze, Huffington Post, The Odyssey Online, In-Detail Media, ect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanyip (talk • contribs) 05:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above remark is by the new account I mentioned. I hear a distinct quacking sound. JamesG5 (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moates is a native of the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex. Michael is currently a student at Tarleton State University, a member of the Texas A&M University system. He is pursuing his bachelor’s of science degree in psychology and minoring in criminal justice and applied behavior analysis. He is an honors program student in psychology and is a member of Sigma Alpha Pi, Omicron Delta Kappa and an external member of Phi Beta Kappa at the University of Texas. Michael currently works as the Director of Communications for American Youth and Politics and also a Journalist for multiple news organizations and covers government, military and politics. He is currently a candidate for U.S. House of Representatives district 26 for the 2020 election cycle.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/realmichaelmoates Facebook Page: http://facebook.com/michaelsmoates Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/mmoates Instagram: http://instagram.com/m.moates

He is seen here:

TheBlaze: http://www.theblaze.com/myvoice/politics/im-calling-you-out-president-obama-open-letter-to-potus44/ http://www.theblaze.com/myvoice/politics/how-the-democratic-party-is-manipulative/ http://www.theblaze.com/myvoice/politics/a-nation-divided-during-the-2016-election/

In-Detail News (An American Youth in Politics company): http://in-detail.org/2017/01/12/confirmation-hearings-for-donald-trumps-cabinet-nominations/ http://in-detail.org/2017/01/08/fbi-briefs-public-on-airport-shooter http://in-detail.org/2017/01/08/appleceosalary/ http://in-detail.org/2017/01/11/the-politics-of-tomi-lahren/ http://in-detail.org/2017/01/15/im-calling-you-out-mr-president-an-open-letter-to-potus/

Hypeline Media Group: http://hypeline.org/the-politics-of-tomi-lahren/ http://hypeline.org/zaxbys-heart-of-dallas-bowl-game/ http://hypeline.org/serving-during-the-holiday/ http://hypeline.org/armed-forces-bowl-game/ http://hypeline.org/a-look-at-the-lockheed-martin-armed-forces-bowl-press-conference-and-luncheon/ http://hypeline.org/this-week-has-been-dedicated-to-the-armed-forces-bowl/ http://hypeline.org/a-nation-divided-during-the-2016-election/

The Odyssey Online: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/@mmoates https://www.theodysseyonline.com/vice-president-biden-awarded-medal-freedom

Internet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7941013/?ref_=nv_sr_5

Rambler Media Group: http://therambler.org/2015/09/12/hitman-agent-47-fails-to-excite/

Eagle Mountain - Saginaw ISD Awards Ceremony: http://www.emsisd.com/site/Default.aspx?PageType=3&DomainID=64&PageID=32417&ViewID=7b97f7ed-8e5e-4120-848f-a8b4987d588f&FlexDataID=48188 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmoates (talk • contribs) 06:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Win the election first. This is not Facebook. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as clear advertised campaigning. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I FINISHED IT PLEASE TAKE A SECOND LOOK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmoates (talk • contribs) 11:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not Facebook. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run-of-the-mill college student trying to run for office...in 3 years, The wikipedia is not a place to advertise a candidacy, come back when the media considers you a viable candidate, since as of now there's just self-published or unreliable sources in the article. ValarianB (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete young aspiring politician, but it is WP:TOOSOON. Recommend that User:Mmoates read WP:RS and WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an as yet unelected candidate in a future election is not, in and of itself, grounds for a Wikipedia article — we maintain articles about holders of political office, not candidates for it. If you cannot make and properly source a credible case that the candidate was already notable enough to pass our inclusion standards for some other reason besides their candidacy, then they do not get an article unless and until they win the seat they were running for. And furthermore, even the primary for a 2020 election is still over three years away, let alone the general election that actually he'd have to win to qualify for a Wikipedia article — not to mention that the 2018 House elections still have to happen first, so technically we don't even yet know who the incumbent is that he'll be primarying. No prejudice against recreation if and when he wins election to a notable political office, but a person does not get an article on here just for declaring himself a candidate in an election. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate for office with no outside notability. The creator might like to take a look at WP:NOTWEBHOST AusLondonder (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Outside sources including the Huffington Post and The Blaze listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.208.101.169 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say but that does not seem to be a truthful statement. There is no citation to Huffington Post, only an inaccurate claim that the subject quote "works for" them and others. If a person submits freelance writings to a publisher, you can't really say the person "works" for that publisher. TheBlaze links are just links to the subjects own submitted content, not to articles written by others about the subject. ValarianB (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aspiring politician with no significant, substantive media coverage to date.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enantra[edit]

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

Non-notable event: does not appear to have substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources Vanamonde (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - needs to have some reliable coverage from secondary sources Spiderone 11:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Spiderone. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable encyclopedia material. Light2021 (talk) 18:39, 31 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zianna Oliphant[edit]

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

Young girl who got her 15 minutes of fame. I couldn't find any news coverage past October 2016. Basically the definition of WP:BLP1E. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete A brave kid who is an example to others, but that does not trqnslate into notability. WP:BLP1E applies, especially given her very young age. --bonadea contributions talk 21:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEVENT--Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With the possibility for a mention in Truthiness if relevant. Sam Walton (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpiness[edit]

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

nn neologism. Unless google censors its search results (or I am internets illiterate), there is virtually no hits last half year. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism. We just had Alternative facts which deals with similar issues kept by AfD earlier today. I don't think a new article should be created every time someone thinks of a new term to describe issues concerning the Trump administration's relationship with truth. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It might take off over the next four to eight years, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CBALL. A mention in Truthiness is enough for now. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds more like redirecting and merging than deleting, doesn't it? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A mention isn't the same as a merger. It doesn't seem notable enough for more than a single sentence, and anyone could add that to Truthiness as long as it is referenced (if it isn't already there). Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it becomes genuinely widespread it'll be obvious enough. I favour 'Trumposity' myself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Staszek Lem. One time comedy hour stunt gag. Poeticbent talk 17:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEOLOGISM Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 22:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind. A merge with Truthiness would be better suited. It has just enough notability to be worth a small blurb within a parent article. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete a Stephen Colbert gag that did not get ongoing attention. I searched before tagging it for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge into Truthiness. Whilst not as well covered as alternative facts (already), enough reliable sources can be found in international news outlets to establish notability. I therefore think we need an entry for this, but not necessarily in form of a separate article. I suggest to change this into a redirect and merge the contents into the related Truthiness article. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WTF — JFG ^talk 09:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly have WP:SNOW here, could someone do the honours and close it please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 29 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Democrats[edit]

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

I do not believe this borderline promotional article is on a notable topic; if a single article in the Washington Post makes an outfit notable, we're going to run out of paper. This club is...let me see...a day old, and is not proven notable. I'll gladly take a redirect to Young Turks. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the talk page, where the old "oh this guy must be a political opponent" nonsense is brought up. Pshaw. Anyway, I do find it odd that we have a number of accounts (and an IP) that appear out of nowhere, all of a sudden, to support this brand-new article, and I sure hope that we're not going to get a wall of meat here in this AfD. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ever consider that a rapidly expanding movement is obviously going to exponentially attract more people over time? Or that a notice for deletion increases the pressure to improve the page? It's interesting to note the dismissal of the claim of deletion out of political opposition (a claim which I disagree with, for the record) while simultaneously claiming meat puppetry. Come on, look at the article revision history, and it's obvious that it's clearly not a scheme because the patterns of the revisions. I'm sure most of the people are people like me, who Googled "justice democrat" after hearing it, saw that there's a Wikipedia article in desperate need of work, and decided to improve it. Its considerable growth (over two hundred candidate applications and 17 thousand signups in less than one day) makes it notable. The wording bias in the articles can be remedied to make the article less "promotional." And clearly, it's more than one article. -- Firestar493 / Nightstar648 23:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was started awfully early, and the editors didn't know how we define notability, but in addition to the Washington Post and Wired sources—both of which are reliable, especially the first, but neither of which was properly identified, so they were lost in the pool of primary sources (two sets of references to the platform) and dubious sources that I have kept because they reference the full list of founding names mentioned in the article, and who knows, some of those without articles may someday become notable—I found an article on the Univision site. That makes 3 reliable news sources, two indisputably major, so although the New York Times article that comes up on search didn't actually cover this group when I checked last night, I believe it now meets WP:GNG. I have accordingly rewritten it to tighten it up. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim. While it seems a bit bloated, there's plenty of coverage including from the Wired and WaPo to make it a noteworthy topic. Cartoondiablo (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that MoveOn.org, which took off after the disputed 2000 election season, did not have an article until 3 years after the election that launched it into the big time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO and as waaaaay WP:TOOSOON. Yes WaPo and Wired ran articles when it launched. But let's wait until it has done more than launch. No prejudice against re-creation in 6 months or so if coverage at that point warrants.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir. How many other political organizations are able to attract fifty-thousand-odd registrations in two days? 68.132.76.144 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, I really don't see what the problem is with the article. I'm not exactly sure what type of political organization this is (I'm not that familiar with the inner workings of the US system), but Political parties are by definition notable. If someone founds a "People's Democracy Party" in Luxembourg and runs for elections, they are still notable and should have a Wiki article. Just because a party is small (or even dead), doesn't mean it can't have a Wiki article. There are already tons of articles about micro-parties that have like 200 members and get 300 votes. This is no different. --Hibernian (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up and Weak Keep Should have some work done to make the tone a bit more neutral, and the article is a bit light with the number of sources there now, but given that there are a few strong ones, and it seems likely there will be more, I lean to keep. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if there can be a list of Pokemon, why not this? 50,000 sign-ups in one day is pretty notable. It's not like Wikipedia is running out of pages. Asaturn (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There are Wikipedia articles for small third parties like the Alaskan Independence Party, which only has 13,000 members. The Justice Democrats had 17,000 sign ups in 24 hours. I say that if there are people passionate enough to write and maintain an accurate and quality Wikipedia page, why delete it and discourage them from contributing to other articles in the future?
Weak Keep, Although I feel this article was created a little too early, I will say keep as it is a movement of the current time. I do believe more information will become available in the next couple of months but that will take time. For those unfamiliar, this is a movement within the Democratic Party that is similar to the Tea Party movement of the Republican Party several years back. I will admit, it is quite interesting to see how many people have supported the movement so far. As for the New York Times article, the only mention of the Justice Democrats appear in the article link but not in the article itself, which is why the article appears in a Google search for Justice Democrats. It's a pretty deceptive practice by the news agency but that for another day. Elli21486 (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is line with other established pages such as Congressional Progressive Caucus, Wolf PAC, Tea Party movement,Brand New Congress, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YeshaiMishal (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as the article is neutral and not too promotional of the movement, I'm fine with keeping the article. I also think it's prominent and relevant enough to be featured on a Wikipedia article. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course this article should be a neutral description of the movement. But the notability is clear. Anjoe (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely keep, this is a movement made from the people that brought you one of the largest anti-corruption/political movements in history. It would be absolutely ridiculous to delete this when known Punk Rock bands who start side projects have their band's bio on Wikipedia before they even release a successful record, as if they had already sold millions of records. No reason to delete this, AT ALL. 23:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep I don't think this should even be a question. It's a political movement with, as of January 29 2017, over 60,000 supporters, just within the first few days of existence. The party has a clear objective and has been mentioned by several major sources. If that's not notable, I don't know what is. Of course, it should be objective, but that's not a reason for deleting an article when it is clearly noteworthy. -Throast (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the last commenter noted, this movement already has over 60,000 supporters, so it's definitely important enough for an entry. I myself have already consulted it several times for reference, so I can attest that it is helpful for at least this Wikipedia user. Also, the original complaint that "if a single article in the Washington Post makes an outfit notable, we're going to run out of paper" is silly, because this is the internet (paperless). This is a useful page, and so it's worth the cost that is ACTUALLY real in maintenance. comment added by Monica, user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:193:8280:50E4:1994:425A:2C0F:A7AB (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please
Keep. Aaron Schulz 08:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Passes under both WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. Lizzymartin (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Home Sweet Home (2017 video game)[edit]

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

Per WP:PROMO. Non-noteable video game with a "Q2 2017" release date. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I previously closed this discussion as the article was speedy deleted as a copyright violation. It has been recreated, though, so I'm taking the liberty to re-open this (as it hasn't been archived yet). --Paul_012 (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search in the WP:VG/S#List reliable source search engine produces no hits for the name of the game plus the developer name, indicating that this topic is not likely to be notable. --Izno (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. As already pointed out, no hits from reliable video game source search. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete for the same reason I prodded it originally - Unreleased video game with no set date (speculated "mid 2017") WP:CRYSTALBALL. Not notable and no RS. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:27, 26 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian School Hurghada[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. XXN, 01:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until such time as the policy changes, it doesn't have to meet GNG, as a secondary school (or one that includes one) per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The basic premise of the precedent behind school outcomes is that GNG does not require that sources be in the article or even that they be accessible to anyone on the English Wikipedia. It simply requires that they exist and that someone in the right geography and the right language skills could find them. We keep secondary schools under this presumption that if they are a real school, these sources likely exist even if the country they are in does not make them easily accessible online to Anglophones. The current RfC on secondary school notability might lead to a reconsideration of the practice the compromise on schools that has existed over the past decade, but until such a time, we should continue to keep articles of legitimate secondary schools. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on grounds of avoiding Wikipedia:Systemic bias - this deletion discussion shows why the current practice of "keep secondary schools" is good for avoiding systemic bias: A Russian school in Egypt is not something native English speakers often think about. I've encountered difficulty finding Russian sources on the internet but I'm sure sources in Russian and Arabic exist, and perhaps some Egyptian newspapers may have a story about it in English... WhisperToMe (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at present, the article cites no independent sources, so even the low bar of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not met. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found three pages of Russian results. I'm happy to be convinced by Russian speakers that there is significant, independent coverage amongst that. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Precedent; sources provided; no policy to delete otherwise. Lourdes 16:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party reliable sources. These are not optional, see WP:V. Sandstein 20:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khkhjakhkhja barg[edit]

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

One single mention somewhere it's not enough to establish notability. Does not meet WP:NNEWSPAPER. XXN, 01:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not verifiable, possibly a hoax, could not find any other reference confirming this ever existed. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I... also think this may be a hoax. The entire language is spoken by 150k people, and centered about 2k miles from St. Petersburg. Even if this actually was a newspaper, I have a hard time believing it would be notable, and even more so without a Russian language article. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- not a hoax. According to the source listed in the article (by Shirin Akiner, which is an RS), it was one of the three periodicals in the Lak language, and it existed longer than just in 1912-14, as it was reissued under the same name in the mid-century. Here's the link in Google books preview. Being one of only three newspapers in a given language (1948 - ?), I believe this meets WP:NNEWSPAPER #1. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not saying it is a hoax, only that it may be a hoax, notability is a separate matter. I could not find other sources other than what is already listed, which is why I thought that. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping prior voters @Champion and Timothyjosephwood: to clarify that this article is not a hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I tentatively stand by my !vote. This passing mention implies that other sources may exist, but it is not a substitute for those sources. TimothyJosephWood 00:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find enough RS to prove the notability. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:22, 29 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. Sandstein 20:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VIM-Aviaservice[edit]

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

Short-lived airline. Non-notable, probably. XXN, 01:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:35, 30 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Walker (businessman)[edit]

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

The sources online are about the day to day working of a CEO and not something remarkable about the person. In addition there are usual announcements by a company (dialpad) which the subject heads. Most of the sources like forbes, fortune and even techcrunch only have announcements about the day-to-day running of a non notable company and trivial mentions of the subject. Kansiime (chat) 00:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A CEO of a non notable company. The mere mentions in the sources only speak about him in passing mentions while doing what an ordinary company would be doing in its day to day running. Nothing encyclopedic about this subject and a search online doesn't return any coverage in a reliable source. Gachangi (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a non notable person. Xaxing (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ultimately, none of the sources given are provide reliable in-depth coverage of Mr. Swerling. The NY / LA Times articles are about other people's careers or deaths. Mr. Swerling is quoted in each but is not the main topic of concern. I concur with the arguments for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Swerling, Jr.[edit]

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

TV producer lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Subject is only noted in websites like IMDb and databases. Meatsgains (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb and FilmReference.com are reputable databases often cited in Wikipedia articles as reference material. Accordingly the page should be accepted. Bayscribe (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMDB isn't a WP:RS. Kansiime (chat) 01:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please note numerous additional citations to newspapers and other sources such as NY Times and LA Times.Bayscribe (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He shared three Primetime Emmy nominations and had one on his own, but with no wins, he doesn't make the cut IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:29, 27 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] ttp://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/02/accountant_accused_of_stealing_from_client_gets_probation.html Accountant accused of stealing from clients gets probation

[2] ttp://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2013/07/accountant_from_roxbury_accused_of_stealing_66420_from_client.html Accountant accused of stealing from clients

[3] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-6g_CdpJs. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[4] ttp://snwmf.com/phorum/read.php?1,18586. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[5] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002546/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[6] ttp://www.randommedia.com/filmmakers/jesse-lawrence/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[7] ttps://itunes.apple.com/gb/movie/the-knot-2012/id595228472. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[8] ttps://www.amazon.com/Knot-Noel-Clarke/dp/B00IRX3BFS. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[9] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_International#2007_writers. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[10] ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0846032/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]