Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 January	30 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alicat Scientific[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article has no references to independent sources. Created by SPA (with COI) who contested PROD based on company having a patent. Searching turns up only directory and press-release types hits. MB 23:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found minimal sources. Most are from PR blogs and magazines. Or manuals for their equipment. Fails ORG. Lourdes 05:06, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let us be realist[edit]

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

Line of a speech. There's no sign that the speech in question passes the notability threshold and its punchline is even less notable. Note that if kept, the article should be renamed to either "let us be realists or "let us be realistic". Pichpich (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless the author can come up with something convincing to prove otherwise. The article is cited to a transcript of the speech itself, with no secondary proof that it is any more important than other speeches. I see no evidence it is known as "Let us be realist" either. Sionk (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't provide any reason that this speech was notable or even interesting. It seems to have been a boilerplate political speech. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing convincing here. No secondary sources. Zero notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sigh... From the article: "Filipinos is so realistic which it may bring us to be who are and in a creative way." Let us be realists and delete this... Lourdes 05:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of cyclists at the 2016 UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Olympians and cyclists and weightlifters at World Championships Bald Boris 22:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M.U.D.S. – Mean Ugly Dirty Sport[edit]

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

This isn't my area, but I could find no evidence of notability. It exists but not much more. Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NVG with no reviews in reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NVG nothing genially convincing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of urban legends[edit]

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

Appears to have been copy-pasted from somewhere, (suspicion comes from the [1]. No references. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If this article were to expand to have a paragraph about all urban legends at Category:Urban_legends, it would be overlong, and if it just listed them, it would be rather pointless. In theory, a list of urban legends could have a point, but in its current state, this one is a clear WP:TNT candidate. --Slashme (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Yes, multiple copyright violations found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. It's a compilation, each paragraph is cut-and-paste from a different source. This needs to be quickly deleted per WP:COPYVIO. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A perfect valid list article. The copyrighted material in question is just copied from the Wikipedia articles they link to, so its not a problem. And the rules clearly state you shouldn't destroy a list article, simply because you prefer categories. Both can exist. This article list related articles in a legitimate grouping, to aid in navigation, and provide far more information than a category could. Dream Focus 21:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, good point. On further review, it looks like much (maybe all) of the duplicate material I found is itself copied from WP. I've struck out what I said. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN. See Encyclopedia of Urban Legends, for example. See also WP:CLN. Andrew D. (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, esp. WP:CLN and specifically WP:AOAL because this clearly allows users to browse legends with more context than the category. Wouldn't do to fit everything into the main article, Urban legend. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely needs work but I see no reason it couldn't be improved, referenced, etc. A sensible set of inclusion criteria isn't hard to imagine, either, so keep and improve. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable article, just needs some work and might turn into very interesting topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia:LISTNAME by being a broad list of limited value. By the very nature of the list it will be incomplete as there are lots of urban legends (making it violate WP:IINFO). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 04:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles don't have to be complete. That was never a requirement, and is never an excuse to delete them. Dream Focus 09:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the WP:NOTDUPE equivalent of the similar Category:Urban legends, it serves a legitimate navigational purpose. Diego (talk) 13:17, 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Kaiqi[edit]

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

Deproded. Not a notable chess player (not a GMs nor a national champions; not all IMs are notable); the tournament he won is not particularly renowned. There are no secondary sources for this victory. Sophia91 (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The chess-results.com site looks perfectly adequate for sourcing the result of the Korean tournament. His achievement in winning this tournament is not trivial, he finished ahead of 4 GM's and beat GM Jaan Ehlvest. This IM may meet the criteria for notabiliy. Current issues with dead links in the article (it was originally written several years ago) are probably fixable. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC) I also think we need to be aware of possible systemic bias given that many weaker western players have wikipedia articles. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is (unfortunately) no specific guideline for the notability of chess players, so the nominator's assertion that "not all IMs are notable" is a matter of opinion. International Master, although not as strong as a Grandmaster, still indicates a very high level of playing strength - the top 0.25% of all tournament chess players. There are secondary sources in the article, which indicate that he has won at least two notable tournaments.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Korea Open and Philadelphia Congress wins are notable and (now) independently sourced. There are chess bios like Jack Puccini and Erik Kislik that are more serious candidates for deletion. Cobblet (talk) 14:51, 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 procedural close. The article was speedy deleted by RHaworth per WP:G7. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuncay Öztürk[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. For goodness sake, when is being divorced from someone that is notable a reason to remove a CSD? reddogsix (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Andreea Marin. Obvious. In fact, this person seems to have substantial media coverage, so he may even be notable. But as they're all in Romanian I can't judge that. Adam9007 (talk) 20:15, 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 Speedy Keep. At first I thought this was a joke. Exceedingly important figure in music history; see the early history of opera. Can also consider it a WP:SNOWBALL close. Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacopo Corsi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Umair Aj (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the page notes that he's the author of the first ever opera, which the main page Dafne also claims. This page adds a little more biographical detail. No doubt it could use expanding but this certainly seems notable. Any more detail on why you think it fails the guidelines? Mortee (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has articles in both The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance and The Oxford Companion to Music. Srnec (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per both above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article satisfies WP:BASIC per citations above and Carter, Tim (1985). "Music and Patronage in Late Sixteenth-Century Florence: The Case of Jacopo Corsi (1561-1602)". I Tatti Studies in the Italian Renaissance. 1. University of Chicago Press: 57–104. doi:10.2307/4603641. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if it is always a stub, I agree that the individual has made a lasting impact and satisfies notability for biographies at the very least. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:08, 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 keep. Clear consensus for the article to be retained. Further discussion about the article can occur on its talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Mass[edit]

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

Redundant with the page Tridentine Mass. Anyone looking up "Latin Mass" will want that page, not a listicle of Masses celebrated in Latin. The fact that several liturgies may be celebrated in Latin can be briefly mentioned in Tridentine Mass (and IIRC already is); it does not merit its own article. juju (hajime! | waza) 01:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why not propose a merge, then? Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In the meantime, I don't see how this isn't notable, I !vote keep. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are three or four examples on the article of rites other than the Tridentine that are regularly celebrated in Latin, so a merge to Tridentine Mass wouldn't suit. This topic is clearly notable on its own. Brad v 15:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then the title is wrong; the "Latin Mass" nearly always refers to the Tridentine Mass. No one will use the term to casually refer to a Novus Ordo celebrated in Latin, they'll just call it a Novus Ordo celebrated in Latin, or use the proper name of whatever other Latin-language rite they're referring to. Anyway, this whole article could just be a section or two at the end of Tridentine Mass mentioning other Masses in Latin. It is not at all notable. juju (hajime! | waza) 19:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Mass does not exclusively refer to the Tridentine Rite. There are plenty of Catholic churches that distinguish between Latin Mass (Ordinary Form) and Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form). Even if it did, AfD is not the place for this. If there is consensus that Tridentine Mass is the primary topic for Latin Mass, this page should be moved, not deleted. Brad v 19:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- As a non-Catholic, I am not clear what the position is. Are there Latin-language rites for the mass other than Tridentine Mass. If there are, then the others should receive more coverage in this article. If there are not, then we should merge to that article (with the usual redirect), adding sections on anything non-tridentine. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am also not Roman Catholic. If I wanted to know about this topic, I'd look for "Latin Mass" rather than "Tridentine Mass." This article has existed since 2005, and was formerly a list of rituals in Latin including the Tridentine Mass. It appears to me that Tridentine is one of several Latin masses. If that's the case, this article belongs on WP and can include a link in the appropriate section to the Tridentine Mass article for further information (or we could merge the redundant, more specific article into this more general article). I hate to see a schism between "Latin Mass Roman Catholics" and "Tridentine Mass Roman Catholics," so I hope you can reconcile. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article clearly indicates that the Tridentine Mass is not the only version of the Catholic Mass celebrated in Latin. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Mass was celebrated in latin for centuries, and this is the most natural search term. Heck, I've been to Latin masses and never knew they were called Tridentine! — JFG ^talk 06:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at the very least this needs to be a disambiguation page. --Jahaza (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with all above. Clearly notable topic and very interesting too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.216.197 (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The tradition of Latin Mass, as documented in scholarly sources too,^[1] cannot be ignored. Notable per encyclopedic worth. Lourdes 05:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Grosu (public figure)[edit]

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

Non notable musician. The page Luigi Grosu was deleted speedily (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) and subsequently protected. The subject doesn't appear to have gained notability since that point. Fails WP:MUSICBIO no chart singles, awards, etc. Fails WP:GNG, has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Tassedethe (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment When I went to notify the article creator about this article I found that subsequent to the page Luigi Grosu, the article has also been created as Luigi Grosu (entertainer), Luigi Grosu (singer), Luigi Grosu (Singer) and Luigi & Romeo. One of which has been AFDed as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Grosu (entertainer). Tassedethe (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Previous AfD was deleted as WP:TOOSOON two years ago. Still too soon? If the article is kept, it at least needs a re-write and move to Luigi Grosu. For now, I'm going to take out all the links to Twitter per WP:TWITTER. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Non notable musician, possibly an emerging one. The parameters and scope of betterment can be placed on the talk page. Suggestion for further improvement with inclusion of independent publications in popular media needs to be done. The article can also be suggested to follow a proper Afc process. Mention about possible COI also needs to be done. Validation of encyclopedic significance also needs to be called for. Zombalu (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !vote above has been struck. Lepricavark (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources at all. --Whpq (talk) 03:23, 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) 00:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mubashir Ali Zaidi[edit]

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

Subject is not regarded as an important figure. does not meet WP:Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Saqib (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable writer, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A google news search yields a number of articles on this person. Nevertheless, a call for further improvement of the references before acceptance of the article should be called for. Zombalu (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !vote above has been struck. Lepricavark (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the offered news above is in fact simply trivial announcements and mentions, and without anything better, that's unconvincing, and that accompanies the fact the information suggests a too soon career. "before acceptance of the article should be called for" is not how our articles work either, especially since no subjects are ever guaranteed. SwisterTwister talk 00:22, 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) 00:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Famicom and Super NES games by genre[edit]

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

Contested WP: PRODs. This article, and the related articles listed below, are all redundant to List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games (hereafter abbreviated as ListSNES) and List of Super Famicom games (which is also redundant to ListSNES, but that's a matter for a different discussion). The objection raised by the contesting editor is that List of Super Famicom games does not include the genre information, but this is an invalid argument for keeping the articles on two counts: (1)As seen in ListSNES, genre information does not need a separate article. (2)The genre information in the nominated articles is sourced only to the databases at GameFAQs and Allgame, meaning that it is almost certainly inaccurate, at least in the case of Japan-only releases, which are the only ones not already covered by ListSNES. Martin IIIa (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following articles in the same family:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Already covered by List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games, unnecessary breakdown by genres. If there is such a need, anyone can add genre information to that list. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games, which makes all of the other redundant. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unnecessary content forks from parent article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The contents of these lists can be covered in List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. These are fine either as sections in List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games or as column in a table there (which it is now). South Nashua (talk) 18:24, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stagno d'Alcontres[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for this project. There are many families in Italy, as elsewhere, and not all are notable. I note in particular that the comprehensive Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani does not have an entry on the family or on any of its members. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing particularly notable about this family, judging from my own search for potential sources and certainly not enough for an encyclopedia entry. There are literally hundreds of these quasi-noble families in Italy. The lack of an entry for the family or any of its members in the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani pretty much clinches it. It is mentioned in the entirely unreferenced List of marquesses in Italy#List of marquesses in Sicily. That's more than enough. Voceditenore (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet any standards here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen B. Elliott[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No deep reliable secondary coverage of Elliott, unless one counts an interview with a nonnotable blog (BMED Report). The article is a well-written resume that seems to be mostly about a fringe theory that Elliott pushes ("coherent breathing"), which notable skeptic Steven Novella has addressed on his blog. Further, the article was fully written by his son (with cleanups and categorizations done by others), in violation of WP:COI, including many edits after my informing him of said violation on his talk page. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sources WP:PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 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) 00:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TaxKilla[edit]

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

Old stub about a non-notable tool which no longer exists. — JFG ^talk 15:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The tool was short-lived and I can't see evidence of lasting effects or any coverage outside 2012. The main page of the product is a dead link. If detail and references could be added for its significance at the time then it might be worth having. Mortee (talk) 21:39, 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) 00:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allysin Chaynes[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Under the current PORNBIO consensus, winning a niche award without other significant RS content is not enough to sustain a BLP. Even if the niche award were somehow seen as meeting PORNBIO standards, that technical pass would be outweighed by the gross deficiency in RS content/coverage. No nontrivial pertinent GNews or GBooks hits. Most news coverage relates to a Canadian drag performer with the same stage name, clearly an entirely different person. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unremarkable actor; minor award. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable performer in pornography who does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Jamieson[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. Sources available are merely routine coverage of Australia's Next Top Model and indicate the subject is only notable for her appearance as a contestant on the series (which she did not win). At the least, the article contravenes WP:TOOSOON. Linguist ^talk|contribs 15:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Linguist ^talk|contribs 15:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Linguist ^talk|contribs 15:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Linguist ^talk|contribs 15:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable model, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails NMODEL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable model. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this time. While extensively covered, coverage is narrow in scope. 1E and TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice to a merger discussion or decision, but the outcome is definitely not delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dental vibration appliance[edit]

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

Nothing to show that this is notable for now. A mention in a Cochrane review is enough to merit inclusion in another article, but not an article on its own. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These devices were effectively the subject of the Cochrane review, since the only two studies examined each tried to evaluate one brand of device (per the absract). I think that's enough, even though the conclusions of the review were not very encouraging. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the article should be expanded somewhat using that source. As it is now it is of little value, if maybe not so little as to delete it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may not need a stand-alone article. It can be merged to dental braces under a new section titled "Dental vibration appliance" QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge & redirect" is probably a good solution. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The page says "Dental vibration appliance, sold under the brand name AcceleDent, OrthoAccel, and Tooth Masseuse, are devices which uses "micropulses" to try to speed tooth movement when used with dental braces." This is misleading content if the device is no longer on the market. QuackGuru (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the market, and the maker was trying to promote it as recently as Jan 14 by rewriting the article to include "AcceleDent® is an FDA-cleared, Class II medical device...", "clinically proven to speed up orthodontic treatment by as much as 50 percent...", etc. (Now rev-deleted from the article history as a copyright violation, here's a copy of the company's PR release from which it was taken). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I think it can be mentioned in dental braces. There needs to be more content to justify a stand-alone article IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could go with that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. In a few years, it's likely to read something like: 'The dental vibration appliance was a device which was claimed to use "micropulses" to speed tooth movement when used with dental braces. Subsequent research failed to replicate early results, and the device was withdrawn from the market.' At that point, it can be removed from the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes a mention in a Cochrane review definitely supports notability. If stuff makes it into major high quality secondary sources than we are good. We should first clean up all the primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Being the subject of a Cochrane review (not just getting a mention in one) seems like enough for notability. And I think there is sufficient value in the article in that it tells people who want to know about it that studies do not so far support its efficacy, and that has to be of benefit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at stub level I'm happy with the Cochrane review as a source, and agree with Boing! said Zebedee that documenting its questionable efficacy is useful. Flat Out (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will work to expand. There is a lot more to say. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:45, 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 speedy delete. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dex Robinson[edit]

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

I can find no reasonable claim of notability. The only reference is one trivia article that the subject had published in a magazine, and a Google News search found no other coverage of him. Gronk Oz (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and fairly obvious COI/PR attempt. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: I have nomed for A7 Speedy. Pretty clear cut this one is - there is nothing about him online and it just seems a promotional article. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've speedied it per A7. Bishonen | talk 16:11, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2012 May Day protests[edit]

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

Mostly empty page that hasn't been updated since 2013. Contents are already covered in Occupy movement in the United States and related articles. — JFG ^talk 15:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Please read WP:NOTCLEANUP. No fewer than seven significant sources are right there in front of you even without doing any research of your own per WP:BEFORE. Many more sources exist, such as several books published since the initial news coverage that analyzed the subject in a historical context. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the sources, however the article is mostly empty and has remained untouched for over 4 years despite the requests for expansion. Should I just boldly merge it somewhere with more meat? — JFG ^talk 07:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Or you could gather more facts from the many sources that are available, and expand it. Or add a maintenance tag. Or do nothing and leave it as it is until someone else gets to it. It doesn't matter how long it has existed. Maybe four years is a long time to you, but it could just as well be 4 seconds or 40 years. Wikipedia gets done when a volunteer gets it done. You might feel impatient but there are still no deadlines.

The article talk page or a related WikiProject would be the place to discuss these questions. You should not nominate any more articles for deletion because they have surmountable problems. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Some source examples are listed below; more are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep The GNG is met - a WP:BEFORE search would have been prudent. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:13, 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Ghoreishi[edit]

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

PROD removed by author without explanation. Still fails NACTOR and GNG as my PROD stands. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]; Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Farsi search: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comment: I have linked the article to fa:سحر قریشی where an article has existed since 2010. When I search for her name in Farsi, I get a 500.000+ hits, Gnews alone is 160.000+ hits currently. And from what I can gather, she is popular in her home country. Now, I don't speak Farsi, but I suppose nom does. Their PROD here with the terse "Fails NACTOR." came only 2½ minutes after this previous edit in another article. I find it hard to believe that an actress with 30+ productions in 7–8 years, and this amount of existing sources should fail NACTOR and GNG, but perhaps nom could explain their review of the sources? — Sam Sailor 16:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 16:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 16:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 89.45.49.170 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:ENT. 1) Significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows [These films and TV shows have separate articles on Persian Wikipedia]. 2) Large fan base in Iran. 5.2 M followers on Instagram, not to mention Telegram, which is by far the most popular social network in Iran. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:08, 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) 00:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Babangida Kabiru Ruma[edit]

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

Non-notable political activist. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Sources within article are either blogs, interviews, the subject's own websites or don't even mention the subject at all. Notability has not been established. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article about a non-notable person lacking in encyclopaedic content. Wikipedia is not a resume. I found 1 some promising sources, but they aren't about his person, we need to know what really makes him notable for inclusion here. Just commenting on national issues isn't enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darreg (talk • contribs) 09:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did manage to find some coverage that is reliable on the page [2], [3], but overall, it does not convince me that WP:GNG has been met, or one of the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. I had no luck finding additional sources in a google search, but if more coverage could be found, would be happy to change my vote. Yvarta (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
week keep The article is well written and some sources can be found that attests to notability just a pity they might not be enough.Mahveotm (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have found some Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage in independent, reliable sources strictly about the PERSON HIMSELF, then please feel free to link to them here. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable political activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kazha Hornsby[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable music producer, Fails NMUSIC & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC and finding no evidence of WP:CREATIVE being met. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glitz (software)[edit]

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

Notability not established. See arguments of previous AFD. Ysangkok (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Glitz might have been wiki-notable once, but it became irrelevant many years ago. Ysangkok said that notability has not been established, but I'd say that complete non-notability has been established. (BTW, I write as one who put some effort into the article.) CWC 11:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As was just pointed out to me again: Notability is not temporary (NTEMP). But note that this was already deemed not-notable once, before you recreated it. Would you admit that you only thought it was notable back then, because it seemed like an important piece of the 3D desktop fad which people thought would bring the ever-elusive year of the Linux desktop? This section is a joke: History of the graphical user interface#Current trends. I think the NTEMP guideline is problematic with software because a once-important component of infrastructure can be quickly replaced. Many software projects are engineering efforts that, even though they are the results of years of development are not notable. Others, more theoretical ones, are notable even though they are new. This is why I for example just added a section on the ECMAScript article about await/async, even though the standard is not yet released. In the JavaScript ecosystem, people are using draft standard features because they are already shipping before the standard is out. But these additions WILL be released with a standard release, and they can never be removed, unlike Glitz. People are using implementations, not standards. This is why I oppose these reverts: [4] and [5]. --Ysangkok (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said that I thought Glitz was going to be notable, and (not for the first time) I was wrong.

As to why I edited the article: I came across it while trying to improve our articles about Cairo (graphics) and related FLOSS graphics infrastructure; since it took me a little effort to understand that stuff, I thought Wikipedia should provide an overview of those projects. You're right about NTEMP not working on lots of software projects.

Thanks again, Ysangkok. Cheers -- CWC 13:31, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House of Haldane (fictional)[edit]

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

Consists only of in-universe plot summary from a series of novels, in violation of the policy WP:NOT#PLOT (as tagged since 2013!) and citing no third-party sources, in violation of WP:N. The series is notable and I am aware that there are reliable sources about it. But notability is not inherited, and it would be incumbent on those who want to keep the content to demonstrate that there are any reliable sources that specifically cover this one part of its plot in depth such that this topic would itself be notable enough for a dedicated article. Our policies and practice require that we are not a fan wiki open to long, uncritical, unsourced in-universe plot summaries. And by its title, this article can hardly ever be anything else. Sandstein 14:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Exactly as Sandstein states. The only way a fictional family can pass NOTABILITY is for an editor to bring reliable, secondary sources; i.e. articles in notable publications that discuss the family as a thing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:36, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death Beach (2016 film)[edit]

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as it does not appear to have received any coverage in independent, reliable sources. The sourcing on the page appears to be only routine database listings, which cannot establish notability and some of which are in places that cannot even serve as a WP:PRIMARY or WP:TRIVIAL source. BOVINEBOY2008 14:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 21:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM with no reviews in reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd originally put a PROD on the page, only for it to be removed. This just doesn't seem to be notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything to support notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best sources I could reach was a review of a same-named musical video. Fails NFILM. Lourdes 05:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sprunt Architects[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP since it has seemingly not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Per WP:AUD, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." Even the most reliable references provided (e.g., Architects' Journal) are no more than "media of limited interest and circulation". Lincolnite (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've not nominated this article for AfD before now because they claim a couple of awards. However, the Green Guardian award is minor and the RIBA East award appears to be for a design by Sweden's White Arkitekter, with Sprunt acting as the locally based executive architects. Outside of the odd mention in the Architects' Journal I can't see any significant general news coverage about Sprunt. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 14:21, 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) 00:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Poetry 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 Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unconvincing for the needed independent notability and what's here is no different than what the main article could mention. SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 30 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Coorgs[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Seems to be part of a self-promotional thing by the author. See this discussion (permalink - the discussion may grow yet). Sitush (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I am not saying that the article creator is the author of the book. But the book has been inserted at various articles in a manner that makes me think those insertions were by the author. And the creator Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk · contribs) has edited the user page of the contributor whom I think may be the author of the books. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the inherent connection - same author, amateur historian, fails GNG etc:

Long ago in Coorg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mookonda Poonacha Nitin Kushalappa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them. The limited coverage of the author and his books are relatively trivial puff pieces. Fails WP:Notability. First Light (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the bunch: lack of evidence of notability. I've had interactions with the creator before, too, and they did not inspire confidence as to their knowledge of policy. Vanamonde (talk) 17:36, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caimeiju[edit]

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

Not seeing sufficient coverage to justify a page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, trivial mentions in a few sources. Brandmeister^talk 12:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Suggestion for proper Afc process should be given. The only reference that seems to defend keeping the article is reference 2. Possible scope of development should be added to the talk page. If page is not retained, the draft can be retained and further development sought. Zombalu (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !vote above has been struck. Lepricavark (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. so little evidwence of possible notability that it could have been an A7 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly the work of a paid editor, despite their denials. I hope they don't charge much. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exemplo347 :D Fails ORG and WEB. Lourdes 05:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spalvotas[edit]

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

Restored redirect to band - this uncited article has been that way for 5 years, redirect was reverted, and 3 inconsequential references were added, which prove the song exists, but give no indication of notability. Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and nothing in the article suggests it passes WP:NMUSIC. In addition, as written it appears to be almost all WP:OR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as there's simply nothing here for our policies, the only sources offered are mere listings and this is not what's acceptable, regardless of whatever, because there's no substance, which shows when there's simply the only basic information and list. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought any albums of notable artists became notable anyway?Cexycy (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - No. Per NAlbum: "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article."Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - The band have produced albums before and after this one so surely I would have thought it would have gained some interest and notability. Just because I can't find any information about it, doesn't mean that it is unnotable. Instead of working against the article, why not work with it to improve it? Cexycy (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article about an album (not a song) by a notable act as they have their own article without any issues. References have been sort to confirm the information provided and anything which cannot be confirmed can easily be removed. Further information can be added as and when available, just like any other article. Cexycy (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Renata (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That doesn't really say a lot does it? Cexycy (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Article doesn't establish notability. Sources cited are simply listings and Google and NYT searches provides nothing to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 17:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How come this article is just under nine years old and it's only being contested now? Cexycy (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are sincere in trying to improve the content of Wikipedia so in that spirit I observed the following:

Part of the reason may be that the article was redirect to B'Avarija for 21 months before you, as the article creator, decided to undo the redirect. Secondly the article doesn't get much traffic. From 7/1/2015 - 1/28/2017, the day before the AFD, the article was viewed only 130 times. That's about one view every 4 days.

Regardless of the age of the article, it does not meet notability guidelines. It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Music databases do not meet the significant coverage requirement. CBS527^Talk 00:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being sarcastic? I'm not trying to start, I can't really tell because it's in text and no voices are involved. Just wondering. I do not get as much time online as I would like to, so I do not notice things too quickly. As I originally stated the redirect to the band article was unnecessary. It is also a little rude and it is an abuse of the redirect tool. As I stated originally, if you have a problem with an article, raise the point directly or nominate it for deletion. The redirect is really for when an article is known by more than one name or term, you can redirect people who look for the same thing by one of the other terms, just like I did with B'Avar1ja. Putting that aside, what has the delay of removing the redirect got to do with anything? I also believed that the purpose of Wikipedia articles is basically for information and unlimited information at that. Therefore what has the number of times it is viewed got to do with it? I'm sure there are very obscure articles which get less views but that doesn't mean they should be deleted. It just means not that many people are interested in the subject or just don't know about it. It's interesting that you mention music databases not being significant, as they are independent of the artist, Wikipedia and myself. How much more independent do you want? I did also added another site as a source. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not angry or anything, just stating my side. Cexycy (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, no, I was not being sarcastic, that was not my intention. You asked the question "How come this article is just under nine years old and it's only being contested now?" and I was suggesting some possible reasons why the article was being contested now. Redirects are also used If a topic is not considered important enough to merit an article on its own. I had nothing to do with the redirects of this article. I was only pointing out that during the time the article was redirected there was no reason for the article to be contested. Similarly, If an article isn't viewed that frequently there is less chance that the article will be improved or contested.Though none of the aforementioned has anything to do with whether the article is notable or not. BTW- I tried to find verifiable sources to establish notability to add to the article but sadly I was unable to find any. CBS527^Talk 03:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MobileSyrup[edit]

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

Does not appear notable Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not the slightest evidence for notability. Seems to be even an A7 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG not met, WP:NWEB not met. Paid editor doing low quality work. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's quite a well known resource for tech information and news. News media like Financial Post source considerable material from Mobile Syrup. I do realize that the article needs to be improved quite a lot for it to seem notable. In my opinion, the company seems notable on the face of it; but an interested editor would have to document the sources. I'm neutral about the delete. Lourdes 05:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's "well-known", there should be some evidence from reliable sources for that, and no, that their content gets used doesn't say much at all. --Calton | Talk 07:37, 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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women's March on Seattle[edit]

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

Not enough contents to justify a separate page: events are covered in the main 2017 Women's March article. — JFG ^talk 10:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of 2017 Women's March locations.~~WP:POVFORK~~ WP:CFORK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: I'm at a loss trying to understand your use of WP:POVFORK. The guideline states that this applies "when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page". As page creator and watcher since its inception I'm unaware of any content disagreement whatsoever. What's more the same guideline states that this term should not be used "except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing" lest it be seen as disparaging. Perhaps you'd like to change your description of what you see as the problem here? - Brianhe (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A typo, merely, I should have written WP:CFORK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. There should probably be article about most events that attract 100,000+ people. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we shouldn't. We have, for example, an article about A Capitol Fourth not a series of articles about it year by year. We have Gezi Park protests with a section about the spread of the protests nationwide, NOT an article to each city across turkey. We have an article about Victory in Europe Day, but not separate articles about each city where crowds gathered - although there were 1 million people celebrating in London alone. It is simple more efficient to present material about multiple-venue events in a group article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has 24 sources and is six paragraphs long. List of 2017 Women's March locations is one quick blurb with three sources for the Seattle event. A merge would not be "efficient" even if other considerations like other media (e.g. inline photos and Commons link) and abundant opportunity for future expansion to GA like Women's March on Portland weren't a concern. This nom seems a bit pointy considering a modicum of WP:BEFORE would have told you it was Seattle's largest protest in history. - Brianhe (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Plenty of coverage to meet GNG. It's a recent event, so time will tell if the event is of lasting historical significance. Per the nomination statement, "events are covered in the main 2017 Women's March article", this is not the case here at all; the 2017 Women's March page presently provides almost no context, and only has the name "Seattle" in it three times, once in the lead, once in the sidebar and once in the gallery section. The List of 2017 Women's March locations has a very brief synopsis, which is fine for a list article, but is also short, and merging a bunch of content to the list would make it unbalanced compared to the rest of the entries there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Before starting an AfD on an article that has "not enough contents", please read the criteria for deletion and be aware that AfD is not cleanup. The subject has a verifiable superlative as the largest march ever in Seattle, and substantial coverage in independent sources. Calling it a content fork from a list is nonsensical. It does not contain the same content as the list, so it's not a content fork. I'd hate to see every article that happened to also be on a list somewhere deleted because it was a "content fork". Silly nominations don't reflect well on any editor. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced notable event that attracted over 100,000 people. ValarianB (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very large event per above. MB298 (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has had many people come. I think it meets WP:GNG. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plethora of RS generally indicates subject meets GNG DarjeelingTea (talk)
Keep this article represents a march that was attended by over 100k people in Seattle. It will remain a part of Seattle's history and also a part of the larger story on this topic.Jaldous1 (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No point keeping this Afd open. The sources, the notability are beyond question. Lourdes 05:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG has been met. Nominator may not fully understand that Deletion is not cleanup Exemplo347 (talk) 22:15, 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 merge to List of 2017 Women's March locations. Kurykh (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women's March on Austin[edit]

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

Not enough contents to justify a separate page: events are covered in the main 2017 Women's March article. — JFG ^talk 10:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of 2017 Women's March locations.WP:POVFORK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The 2017 Women's March article presently has no mention of the Austin protest other than a link in the sidebar atop the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to one of the other March articles. Jw12321 (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Austin protest is present in List of 2017 Women's March locations. -lance386 (talk) 2:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to 2017 Women's March. Not as noteworthy as some of the other protests. MB298 (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is going to be merged, then merge to List of 2017 Women's March locations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 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) 00:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Destiny[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable independent sources. The1337gamer (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 08:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search gives no reliable sources for passing the notability guidelines. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:55, 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 redirect to List of Wikipedias. Kurykh (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic Wikipedia[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. f eminist 09:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. f eminist 09:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. f eminist 09:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - deleting this would leave one red link on Template:Wikipedias, when the others are all blue. I've copied some additional information from the Icelandic version, automatically translated then tied up from the Icelandic version. If an Icelandic speaker who sees this could confirm the translation, that'd be great. I don't know that it helps establish notability, which is why I'm not !voting. If it is deleted, for consistency we should review the pages for other language-specific Wikipedias too, in case they fail the same tests. Mortee (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if there is a guideline or previous discussion on articles about small Wikipedias could you link to it, as othewise this seems a rather arbitrary nomination. Eustachiusz (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Wikipedias. The article souces and my searches led to minor coverage in RSes. Fails notability. Happy to reconsider if significant coverage is found. In 2007 this large group Afd kept all although only a brief mention of this article in particular. The Template:Wikipedias has a list of other wikipedia that have articles in the English wikipedia. So when an new article is created or one is deleted the template should be changed. It's not a complete list of wikipedias. There are 284 of those. Gab4gab (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found an archived discussion about the deletion (redirecting) of articles about smaller wikipedias [here] Gab4gab (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks - that gives it some context.Eustachiusz (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above - No evidence of notability however consensus is more or less to redirect these so redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias. I looked into this a bit yesterday, and more today. This topic has not received a great deal of source coverage. Some sources are out there (e.g. [6] (subscription required)), but the topic does not appear to have received enough coverage to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I only see room for improvement. Sources for subjects like this one are not going to have a pool of English sources, and it is wrong to assume that the number of English sources indicate the number of sources in other languages. I will happily improve the article and add a few Icelandic sources.

I do want to point out though that if the intention is to base strictly upon the notability criteria then even articles on big wikipedias are going to struggle to keep up with that expectation. For example, the article on the Swedish wikipedia contains mainly sources that categorize as being primary sources (hosted on wmf websites) or are "dependant of the subject". If that is the case I want to urge the nominator to nominate all wikipedia articles that fail this criteria.--Snaevar (talk) 00:25, 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 Battle of Beiping–Tianjin#The Langfang Incident. Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Langfang Incident[edit]

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

Does not cite sources. Only one reference. Does not meet the standard of a quality article... Sennti (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of inline citations, presence of a single reference and the current state of article quality are not reasons to delete. Not separately -- nor taken together. If this remains the extent of the deletion rationale, oppose. We do see that there is a fairly well developed referenced article on the Japanese wiki, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason to delete has been given. Srnec (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to document the minutiae of skirmishes of a war, which would be tedious read. Unless something significant and noteworthy happened at this event, it does not need an article. ValarianB (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, some citations in the Japanese version of the article (ja:廊坊事件) are primary sources, but not all are. There seems to be plenty to develop this and show it passes GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Ansh666 (below). It can be re-spun off into its own article if necessary later. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible that this could be redirected or merged to Battle of Beiping–Tianjin#The Langfang Incident, which contains a bit more information but no inline citations. ansh 666 21:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Ansh666 for now. Timmyshin (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: agree with Ansh666 that redirect seems the best solution here for the timebeing. I have no issues with the article being resurrected later, though, if more information and sources are provided. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect -- Too little content to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 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 redirect to List of Wikipedias. Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cebuano Wikipedia[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is its high number of articles. Other than that, no evidence of significant coverage in third-party sources. f eminist 09:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. f eminist 09:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. f eminist 09:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Wikipedias - No evidence of notability however consensus is more or less to redirect these so redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias. no evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The cited sources are all Wikimedia Foundation web pages, apart from an interview, on a site dedicated to promoting Cebuano, with the person largely responsible for building Cebuano Wikipedia. Nor do my searches provide anything better. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias per above. This Wikipedia, despite its high number of articles (although there's a reason for that, but that is outside the scope of this discussion), simply has not received enough significant coverage in reliable sources, even Philippine ones (note that Philippine online media is mostly in English). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:19, 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 redirect to List of Wikipedias. Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ido Wikipedia[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. f eminist 09:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. f eminist 09:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. f eminist 09:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Wikipedias. Searches found only trivial coverage in RSes. Fails notability. In 2007 this large group Afd kept this article although there was no discussion of Ido in particular. Gab4gab (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Wikipedias - No evidence of notability however consensus is more or less to redirect these so redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Internet source searches are only providing passing mentions; does not meet GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 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.

First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is a Redundant content fork of at least two other articles. Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump cover the same content. Gfcvoice (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The media is talking a lot of this first 100 days. For good or bad, it is going to be a historic one with --already-- action to do a border wall and to junk the previous president's flagship legacy accomplishments like Obamacare and the Iran deal. For some presidents, the "first 100 days" is a big deal historically and in terms of outcomes --of changes. Like him or not, this is one of those times. Cramyourspam (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary of the contents with Presidency of Donald Trump, then redirect this title to Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump. There should be nothing special about the first 100 days except symbolism. See also the discussion I just started at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#Scope of this article?. — JFG ^talk 08:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency exists AIRcorn (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it exists. No it's not a reason to keep this one, per WP:OSE. Obama's article is also very redundant with his Cabinet nominations, inauguration, policies and timeline. May as well get nuked (but that's a different discussion). Certainly not an example to follow. — JFG ^talk 11:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Don't be biased if you want to get rid of this one also get rid of Obamas.
- Strong Keep I completely agree with this, if we get rid of one, we get rid of both. Also, please sign your name after your comment. CaptainGummyBearz (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is standard article, we have at least four others, and its very relevant and sourced. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 13:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN. Many respectable sources are analysing just the first week even. NYT; BBC; FT; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We must remember that the presidency itself has just started, causing that those 3 articles stated have the similarities in content. For short, these three are still developing articles. The time will come that these three will not have the same scope anymore. After 100 days and reelection of Trump, in case he wins in 2020 elections. For the timeline, its just an outlined summary of activities of Trump, even Obama has one. Anyways, sorry for Bad English. ~Manila's Poging Juan 14:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should all be in Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:LISTN WereWolf (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PogingJuan Orser67 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This should exist for every Presidency - as it does for Obama. Overlap in article content is not unusual. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree with arbitrary and meaningless durations of a tenure, sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it doesn't have a legislative basis doesn't mean that its meaningless. Its a frequently cited benchmark. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Donald Trump's first 100 days had faced tremendous controversy; Trump had already faced many protests including the 2017 Women's March and the 2017 John F. Kennedy International Airport protest. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't been in charge for 100 days. What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF on edits from the future. :-) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't assume that the level of controversy is going to die down on day 101. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on the man's presidency. It is WP:TOOSOON for this article as 90% of whatever it might be going to be about hasn't happened yet. I would also discount many of the !votes which do not seem to be offering any kind of logical reason for keeping the article; though that does make them oddly in keeping with the president's utterances. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the content fork argument, but in U.S. presidencies, the "first 100 days" is used as a marker, a way to judge the effectiveness of the administration during the "honeymoon period", when the administration should be at the height of its power. The timeline should also cover these days, but in a less detailed way. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 29 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) 18:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also FDR In addition to Obama's there is also First 100 days of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency. I'm surprised there's not more as "the first 100 days" does seem to be a notable marker and concept for political leaders. There is also this stub on the concept: First hundred days. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I strongly support keeping First 100, as it is not a redundant content fork as alleged by User:Gfcvoice, who nominated First 100 for deletion. There is no WP:POVFORK or WP:POVSPLIT in First 100 and it is a valid Shortcut:WP:SPINOFF. Currently, there is a "fairly structured" series of articles, each with their own scope and formatting, president-elect, Presidency of Donald Trump,Donald Trump#Presidency, Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump, Presidential transition of Donald Trump, First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, a detailed account of his first months in office, List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump, a complete itinerary of his travels abroad, etc. and Political positions of Donald Trump. In these early days, there is no need to rush into deletions and merging of the Timeline and First 100 days, as these can be rectified slowly over time. User:Markbassett provided a useful response to User:JFG's concern (08:20, 29 January 2017) that there was "a lot of redundancy" between the articles. (User:JFG was of the opinion that the article should stay at "overview level and allow easy navigation to the specialist articles. It should not list daily events or news coverage."
"It's within category US Presidential administrations, so I believe the scope is simply the presidential activity of this president. These are NOT indexing articles to lower pieces, they are presenting the presidential activity. The series is fairly structured and scope seems the formal actions starting from the day of inauguration to last day of office and possibly some retrospective about the period later on. I think the other articles are slightly different in scope or formatting. The timeline is in chronological order. The positions could include things that are not actual actions or events and periods before and after the presidency and may refer to things."
— User:Markbassett 14:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
There is indeed "something special" about this First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency re: User:JFG. I agree with User:Anastan, that there are other useful First 100 articles, Obama and Roosevelt and with User:Shawn in Montreal that there are not more First 100 in general as "notable" markers. Trump's 100 Days, in particular, reflects WP:LISTN as noted by user:Andrew Davidson and User:WereWolf, as evidenced by the local, national and international media - mass media (mainstream, alternative and social media) and Internet coverage. It is a complex period that is receiving wide, detailed and riveted attention globally and Wikipedia is reflecting that. First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency has a different scope and format from the Timeline. First 100 provides a "detailed account of his first months in office" as noted in the Timeline lede. On the Timeline talk page, User: Buster7 wisely noted that, ["In order to maintain a strict bipartisan nature extreme brevity and conciseness is required in a timeline." The lede in the Timeline article refers to other Wikipedia articles in the interrelated series, including First 100 days as ; for a detailed account of his first months in office, see First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency; for a complete itinerary of his travels abroad, see List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump." First 100 is not a mere timeline, but provides more details with multiple wikilinks to specialist articles on specific Presidential actions, key individuals, and individual agencies, etc, underlining the importance of each issue. I agree with User:Andrew D. that the sources used are "respectable." The references in First 100 are very strong, including references to the Congressional Research Service, for example, and links to full-text actions and interviews, that are not cited in the Timeline or the Presidency articles. First 100 is definitely not Wikipedia:TOOSOON. Results of a basic key word "first 100 days" provides ample evidence of the global significance of these 100 days. According to Wikipedia:TOOSOON guidelines, 100 First fits the "various notability criteria" in that "the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content." Ample sources exist and it is not too soon. On the contrary, it is difficult to choose between an overabundance of articles analysing the First 100, just from the major news sources used by Americans alone,^[1]^[2]^[3] let alone major international media. Without valid forking and the creation of new articles as history unfolds in "verifiable" independent secondary reliable sources, and existing articles become too content-heavy, Wikipedia will not be providing adequate coverage. Thanks User: for the gentle reminder to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. We are all volunteers trying to contribute to Wikipedia.

References

^ "Ideological Placement of Each Source's Audience", Pew Research, January 26, 2016, retrieved January 23, 2017
^ Drew Desilver; Amy Mitchell (October 21, 2014), "Q/A: How Pew Research analyzed America's polarized media consumption habits", Pew Research, retrieved January 23, 2017
^ Jeffrey Gottfried; Michael Barthel; Amy Mitchell (January 18, 2017), "Trump, Clinton Voters Divided in Their Main Source for Election News. Fox News was the main source for 40% of Trump voters" Pew Research", Journalism, retrieved January 23, 2017

Oceanflynn (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one course of action for editors is to also add referenced content to the stub First hundred days to bolster the case for notability? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason to delete this article, there is a similar article for Obama. Ralphw (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We did the same thing with Obama. -- Kndimov (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with Obama and FDR. The first 100 days of a presidency is usually independently notable from the presidency itself. Content from the other articles should be moved to this one as time goes on rather than merging from this one.LM2000 (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – First 100 days are significant in U.S. presidential politics. This is the period where Trump gets to leave his first impression as president. I certainly don't see it as simply a redundant content fork as the nominator puts it. I don't think there is any question as to notability of the topic. Dustin (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first hundred days of an administration have become a yardstick of presidential success in the US. Trump even has a 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. We already have an abundance of sources specifically addressing Trump's first 100 days.[7][8][9][10][11][12] This article is a valid SPINOFF; it is well-developed and it goes into too much detail to be crammed into the timeline or presidency article. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 21:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*WP:SNOW Not only is this inevitable, it's already widely discussed. Move along, wasting time here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a summary of the contents with Presidency of Donald Trump. Condidering we are only 9 days into the presidency, this is plainly WP:TOOSOON. In fact, the way things are going the first seven days might be more notable. What if Trump dies, or is impeached etc. before the first 100 days are up?! Per WP:NOT Wikipedia isn't meant to be a day-by-day news report, but a balanced synthesis of whatever has enduring notability. Sionk (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Muboshgu, CaptainGummyBearz, and Oceanflynn. Plus, this is way too much info for a timeline merge, there are similar articles for FDR and Obama, so if you're going to whack Trump's you need to whack them. No bias. The first 100 days of a US Prez's term has become a benchmark. Love him or hate him, Trump's will one way or another be a very historic presidency. HalfGig talk 01:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Why is the arbitrary number of days 100 significant. Divide it by all means but arbitrary numbers like 100 are similar. Use real divides; for instance First Thatcher ministry. Mtaylor848 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you are unaware of where the term originated? The first hundred days of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration in 1933 were a noted period of change where Roosevelt and his allies in Congress put their agenda into motion -- this term has since been applied to multiple presidents, including former President Obama. Whether the number "100" is arbitrary or not, its significance in new presidents' administrations has lasted to this day. Dustin (talk)
Keep per First hundred days and similar articles for other U.S. presidents. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I personally find the obsession with the concept of a president's first 100 days to be silly, I can't say that there aren't sources that comment on the first 100 days of other presidents, at least post-FDR. However, I believe that the coverage of this topic is heavily influenced by recentism. Take George W. Bush, for example. Wikipedia was established just a few days before he took office and was little-known during Bush's first 100 days, so it's not surprising that First 100 days of George W. Bush's presidency was not created at the time. But during Bush's presidency, Wikipedia grew to have millions of users and over 2 million articles -- but still nobody decided to create First 100 days of George W. Bush's presidency during his term, or afterward. On the other hand, Wikipedia was popular when Barack Obama took office, so First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency was created at the time. Yet nobody decided to take a historical perspective and create such articles for First 100 days of Dwight D. Eisenhower's presidency, First 100 days of John F. Kennedy's presidency, First 100 days of Richard Nixon's presidency, First 100 days of Jimmy Carter's presidency, First 100 days of Ronald Reagan's presidency, First 100 days of George H. W. Bush's presidency, or First 100 days of Bill Clinton's presidency. Why not? Recentism. The first 100 days may seem to be an interesting topic when they are happening, but once they are over many people lose interest. That could explain why a full 4 paragraphs of First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency are devoted to Obama's having to re-take the oath of office due to Chief Justice John Roberts misreading it at the inauguration. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Recentism is definitely at play here. We only have three of these articles for our 44 presidents, including the current and most recent. I'd argue though that the answer to that is that we need to create the other 41, or however many when "the first 100 days" became a notable subject. It is something that's studied by historians and talked about significantly in reliable coverage. The New York Times has https://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/ devoted to it. ~~I'm not sure when it began being considered important, though.~~ Ah I see from Dustin above that it was first used with FDR's presidency. Then we should probably have these articles for Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford (if he counted), Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton too. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The concept would be less meaningful as to Truman, LBJ, and Ford, since they came to the presidency suddenly due to the death or resignation of their predecessors. They wouldn't have been able to plan legislative agendas in advance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point. Forget about Truman, LBJ, and Ford. This makes reference to JFK's first 100 days. https://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/ references Nixon's. Here's a piece on Reagan's first 100 days, one on George HW Bush, one on Clinton (which also references Ford), and here's one for George W Bush. Also Fivethirtyeight says "A President's First 100 Days Really Do Matter". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have now created redirects for the other First 100 Days articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (and maintaining my implied view that the article should be deleted) All the discussion about the articles for the first 100 days of Obama's presidency or the first 100 days of FDR's presidency aren't particularly relevant, as discussed in this essay. Furthermore, as other editors noted, Trump has been president for less than 2 weeks, which is well short of 100 days. We don't know for sure that Trump will remain president for 100 days yet - and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is too soon to have an article about the first 100 days of Trump's presidency because he has been in office for less than 2 weeks. Gfcvoice (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Write after 100 days Good point from Gfcvoice. (Then this article should probably contain what outside sources have to say about the first 100 days.) Until then, contribute to Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump If you want to debate/critique the "first 100 days" concept, extend the First hundred days article ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dupdidu (talk • contribs) 11:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from, but we do write constantly about events which have not yet completed. We don't wait until after a presidency to start writing about it, for example, and will write about sports events not just during, but even before they start, as in 2020 Summer Olympics, 2028 Summer Olympics, Super Bowl LI, 2018 FIFA World Cup, etc. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it meets our policies and guidelines, does not meet WP:DEL-REASON, is sourced, has precedent, is useful and significantly popular, and at 43 kB is an appropriate split from the parent article (Presidency of Donald Trump). It's worth noting that the timeline article is a different sort of article, which is not comparable. The contents could not be merged back there, nor should the title be redirected there. Merging the contents back into Presidency of Donald Trump would bloat that article unnecessarily, particularly as we go further into the 100 days. It may well be, due to the controversial nature of this presidency, that there comes a need to split the article into 25 day sections. The good thing about our guidelines is that we allow for that per WP:SPLIT. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a split into 25-day sections would be appropriate unless reliable sources use such analysis. There are, unfortunately, sources that talk about the first 100 days of past presidents, but I don't recall seeing sources about "days 51-75" (for example) of past presidential terms. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first 100 days is an important part of the presidency, and deserves and in-depth article about it. Ideally, a year from now, the other articles won't be as detailed about this period of time.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep - Per many other reasons given. Jdcomix (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as long as the relevant info is also contained in Presidency of Donald Trump. After 100 days that article can be condensed as more relevant information is added, and all the details in this article can stay. Jw12321 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Rationale? Wikipedia is not a vote. Jdcomix (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is the most controversial, significant First 100 Days arguably in American history and people want to delete it? Come on now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.168.251 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of material already, I expect there to be a lot more by the end of the hundred days, and I don't see any strong arguments for deleting it other than a desire to have less material about Donald Trump's presidency. But Wikipedia is not paper, and we often maintain constantly updated articles of unfolding news events. As a matter of fact, one of the most valuable things for me about Wikipedia is the way it tracks unfolding news events when the regular press is spotty or stops following up. There is no particular harm in this article that I can see. If, after a hundred days or a year or four are up, there's a consensus that this material seems to have faded into importance and to have a disproportionate amount of detail, it can always be cut down and merged back in at that time. There's no need to do it now. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems like there's a debate between this article and the Obama's one. FYI, the article was userfy-ed and later got overturned. NgYShung ^huh? 05:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Trump highlights his plans for the first 100 days in this video. I also found out that the news also covers about first hundred days of President Obama. (For example: First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency#External links) The article also meets the policies and guidelines so I don't think there is a problem of it. NgYShung ^huh? 05:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is already so much important information in this article, and it is only the first week. Love him or hate him, we have to chronicle this 100 days for historical purposes. This is already a vitally important article and it will only grow more important. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, plain and simple. Many sources out there explicitly address the events (both those that have taken place and those that are yet to happen) within the "first 100 days" framework. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For many reasons already stated. Calibrador (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely not WP:TOOSOON, as so much has happened that the event is notable. We didn't wait to create Super Bowl LI until after the event was completed. As soon as a topic is notable, an article is appropriate, and this topic is clearly notable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone close this already? Comments lean overwhelmingly for keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only been going for two days, but I do think we may be moving to WP:SNOW. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this is worth deleting, wait until those days are up to judge of how forky is it. Or start with Obama's then come to this one. Nergaal (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep See First hundred days Mr.User200 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -Xbony2 (talk) 02:06, 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. By about 2 to 1, editors are of the view that coverage of this political action committee was too short-lived to warrant an article. If somebody wants to mention it in a related article, googling the name and that of its founder Henry Kraemer should provide enough sources for a sentence or two. Sandstein 12:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands[edit]

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

Yet another WP:NOTNEWS article which doesn't pass the WP:10YT. Delete or merge a couple sentences to Stop Trump movement. — JFG ^talk 11:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "We are patriotic Americans devoted to educating our fellow citizens about Donald Trump's tiny baby hands." All the coverage is just because of the name and that's all there is. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:10YT are just a sample of all the guidelines this article fails. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and the first deletion discussion. There is plenty of coverage to justify an article, which just needs to be expanded. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it is all very low quality tabloid news which is not about anything they did, just about their novelty name? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Reminds me of Graydon Carter's infamous "short-fingered vulgarian" which was deleted per BLPVIO and ATTACK even though the term had been a longstanding nickname of Trump. I don't see why this campaign stunt which made the news for a couple days should survive. We exclude pretty large companies or associations with much wider coverage than this joke. — JFG ^talk 22:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Campaign stunt. I don't think there is an article in Wikipedia for every Political Action Committee. Unless this one has done something more interesting than select a name, let's not keep the article. -- Kndimov (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per first discussion. It passes notability and it would be silly to just provide it a "couple sentences" in a different article when it can be explored in depth with significant coverage in its own article. Carbrera (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This is a registered PAC that is a distinct entity from other groups, that deserves coverage on their actions alone. It is highly cited from credible news sources and should remain. Jasonanaggie (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here is the sum total of additions made to this article since it was first nominated in July: [13] — a grand display of nothingness. Pray tell, if this thing has received no coverage since the initial buzz, how do you propose to extend it now? — JFG ^talk 08:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've initiated the deletion discussion and now added two comments, so you've made your point. But just because an article hasn't been edited since July does not mean the article doesn't have potential to be expanded. We all know that Wikipedia is a work in progress. All that matters here is if the subject is notable. Here are some sources to consider, which I am posting after the below two delete votes:

Sources

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/14/trump-tiny-hands-pac-changes-name-fec-warning/81784716/ (USA Today, March 2016)
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/2/11148356/donald-trump-short-fingers-small-hands-vulgarian (Vox, March 2016)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fec-demands-that-trump-has-tiny-hands-pac-change-its-name/article/2585802 (Washington Examiner, March 2016)
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/17/482534352/tiny-superpac-trolls-donald-trump-about-his-tiny-hands (NPR, June 2016)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/21/americans-against-insecure-billionaires-with-tiny-hands-pac (The Guardian, June 2016)
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/tiny_hands_pac_releases_new_vi.html (The Oregonian, June 2016)
http://gawker.com/anti-trump-tiny-hands-pac-runs-first-tv-ad-in-washing-1782136392 (Gawker, June 2016)
http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?candidateCommitteeId=C00611020&tabIndex=3 (Federal Election Commission)
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00611020/1053714/ (Federal Election Commission)
https://mic.com/articles/146487/anti-trump-pac-americans-against-insecure-billionaires-with-tiny-hands-is-here-for-you (Mic.com, June 2016)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/super-pac-targets-donald-trumps-tiny-hands/story?id=39935132 (ABC News, June 2016)
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/pac-wants-trump-to-release-his-hand-measurements.html (New York magazine, June 2016)
https://www.inverse.com/article/17157-the-donald-trump-has-tiny-hands-pac-s-first-attack-ad-is-kinda-dumb-sad (Inverse.com, June 2016)
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283417-tiny-hands-pac-puts-out-ad-calling-on-trump-to-release (The Hill, June 2016)
http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/06/20/tiny-pac-hands-release-the-measurements/ (Glenn Beck, June 2016)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/trumps-hands-are-weapons-of-war/487652/ (The Atlantic, June 2016)
http://katu.com/news/local/portland-man-behind-tiny-hands-pac-releases-ad (KATU, June 2016)
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-17/tiny-hands-pac-launches-first-television-advertisement (US News & World Report, June 2016)
http://theweek.com/speedreads/631137/super-pac-calls-donald-trump-release-tiny-hand-measurements (The Week, June 2016)
https://www.bustle.com/articles/167649-the-tiny-hands-super-pac-is-here-to-troll-donald-trump-its-amazing (Bustle, June 2016)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/17/1540061/-WATCH-SHARE-An-ad-by-Americans-Against-Insecure-Billionaires-with-Tiny-Hands-PAC-Donald-Trump (Daily Kos, June 2016)
http://www.wweek.com/news/2016/07/12/best-political-pranksters/ (Willamette Week, July 2016)
http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/massive-gap-between-Hillary-Clinton-Trump-TV-radio-ad-spending/304784/ (Ad Age, July 2016)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-small-hands-madame-tussauds-article-1.2737136 (New York Daily News, August 2016)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/aug/03/trump-clinton-campaign-election-2016-live (The Guardian, August 2016)
http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/08/donald_trump_hand_size_finally.html (The Oregonian, August 2016)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/05/yes-donald-trumps-hands-are-actually-pretty-small/ (The Washington Post, August 2016)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3722336/The-Donald-s-actual-hand-size-revealed.html (Daily Mail, August 2016)
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/yes-donald-trumps-hands-are-smaller-than-those-of-85-per-cent-of-american-men-20160808-gqnj0a.html (The Sydney Morning Herald, August 2016)
http://www.kgw.com/news/politics/elections/portland-based-group-delivers-pizzas-to-polls-across-the-country/350117689 (KGW, November 2016)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2016-election-pizza-polls_us_5820d73be4b0d9ce6fbdca8f (The Huffington Post, November 2016)
http://www.businessinsider.com/pizza-to-the-polls-election-polling-2016-11 (Business Insider, November 2016)
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/words-that-will-never-be-the-same-after-this-election/ (The Seattle Times, November 2016)
https://www.bustle.com/articles/193944-pizza-to-the-polls-will-send-you-pizza-while-you-wait-in-line-to-vote-because (Bustle, November 2016)
http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2016/11/08/stuck-in-long-voting-line-pizza-to-polls-to-rescue.html (FOX News, November 2016)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LhNjWoBZck

Hope this helps to establish notability. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Countless political groups exist across the U.S., and this one has only attracted a smattering of attention. Other than that short-term burst of interest, there's not been the lasting coverage that signify this as being anything more than a 'flash in the pan' thing. Just because a group is somewhat popular for a short time doesn't make it really notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened to WP:BEFORE D1? The topic now gets coverage in a 2016 book. As per a November 7 article from Williamette Week, "The Portland pranksters previously known as Americans Against Insecure Billionaires With Tiny Hands PAC have pivoted to a new project: ..." Other articles show that the November Pizza effort raised $300,000 by way of Twitter. The initial news bubble had coverage in Australia. There is another factor here because we discount WP:RS WP:Inaccuracy, as I understand from the word "pranksters". Yet this is countered by the real example of the PAC being forced to change its name, which is likely to continue to draw attention to the topic over time. Wikipedia can wait to see the verdict of time, so delete Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Another Believer's extensive list of articles. Longevitydude (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with you.--連綿 (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect a sourced sentence at Stop Trump. Reason is that this political equivalent of a BLP1E, and is not encyclopedic. Yes, it happened, but even the sources cited describe it as a "prank." Granted, it's clever prank, the video isn't LOL funny, but it is clever. However, there is just not enough here to warrant keeping. Except possibly as a redirect/merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable PAC. This group spent less than $10,000 during its entire existence, which has ended (it filed its termination report with the Federal Election Commission in December 2016). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like another detail to add to the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and that the article doesn't pass the ten year test. Gfcvoice (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of around 4000 PACs, and although it garnered a burst of near-tabloid type coverage due to the provocative name, there is no sustained coverage necessary for notability. It will soon be long forgotten. WP:ONEVENT MB 02:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced, in-depth coverage, we don't need anything else. Articles shouldn't be renominated hoping to get a different result. ValarianB (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Truly huge joke, the best, the biggest, and sure to drain the swamp. This PAC makes the best jokes. Make billionaire's hands bigger! But -- No lasting coverage -- Sad! Bearian (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, lacking long term notability. Props to Bearian for the comment above.LM2000 (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Yet another article containing little or no substance, serving primarily as a clickbait-like collection of one particular type of sources from one particular point in time with no evidence of enduring notability. It's no incentive for me to continue to contribute to this encyclopedia when faced with so many other editors who are content to pick low-hanging fruit like this, pushing every little piece of Trump-related minutiae as automatically and inherently notable while making excuses for why we're so far afield in our coverage of so many other notable topics not making recent news. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of current United States senators by age[edit]

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

List of current United States Senators already has a sortable function where you can sort by the Senators' ages. This copycat table is an obvious case of content forking. Feedback 07:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While calling it a "copycat table" or "forking" doesn't accurately reflect the history (since I initially created the page in 2006, when the list of senators page did not include date of birth or age -- and I'm not even sure if sortable tables were a thing then), I agree that having the separate page may no longer be necessary. -David Baron (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; having a sortable table makes this article duplicative. Could even be a G7 speedy delete if @Dbaron: agrees to that (though I'd be more comfortable retaining as a plausible redirect). Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of current United States senators. Table is already included in this article and is noticeably better presented than the one in this pointless single purpose article.Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 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 redirect to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Chiafalo[edit]

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

I don't believe each faithless elector needs their own individual BLP. Does not meet the WP:BIO criteria of receiving "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 07:06, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an American with zero notability; page started as part of a group of pages created for each individual faithless elector. Already covered at Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 in case someone were to search on the name. Per above, non-notable. MB 02:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:48, 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 Weightlifting at the 2013 National Games of China, Gymnastics at the 2013 National Games of China, Gymnastics at the 2009 National Games of China, Figure skating at the 2009 National Games of China, Figure skating at the 2012 National Winter Games of China, and Table tennis at the National Games of China; no consensus on the rest due to lack of sufficient input, with no prejudice towards their renomination for AfD. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weightlifting at the 2013 National Games of China[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event and violates WP:Sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the AfD page for the full set of links for the below articles.

Also adding these for the same reason:

Gymnastics at the 2013 National Games of China

Gymnastics at the 2009 National Games of China

Figure skating at the 2009 National Games of China

Figure skating at the 2012 National Winter Games of China

Table tennis at the National Games of China

Also adding the following for the same reasons and they are all referenced:

Weightlifting at the 1965 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 1975 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 1979 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 1983 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 1987 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 1993 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 1997 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 2001 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 2005 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 2009 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 1959 National Games of China

Gymnastics at the 2005 National Games of China

Adding some more:

Athletics at the National Games of China

Athletics at the 1993 National Games of China

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China

Athletics at the 2001 National Games of China

Athletics at the 2005 National Games of China

Athletics at the 2009 National Games of China

Athletics at the 2013 National Games of China

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 4 x 400m relay

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 10,000m

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 100m

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 100m hurdles

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 200m

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 400m

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 400 metres hurdles

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 800m

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 1500m

Women's Heptathlon at the 1997 National Games of China

Delete, just like the other billion articles. Laurdecl ^talk 01:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These all follow an identical pattern to SvG's bot-created "articles" and should be blitzed before we have 18,000 of these to sift through. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for this kind of article. Smartyllama (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The National Games are the highest level sports event for 1.4 billion people. The competition standard there (in China's main sports like swimming, table tennis or weightlifting) is regularly at or above world championship level with the athletes themselves being said champions, Olympic medalists or world record holders. I don't think OP properly understands what the NG are or how prestigious winning them is. --Wlift84 (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really feel that an individual article for every single year's results is justified? Why not just add the results to a table in the main article (tables can be collapsed if article length is your concern)? Exemplo347 (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The NGs are a multi-sport event that is held once every four years, just like the Olympic Games. No, I don't think that subpages for every result is justified, but I also didn't create such. I made one overview page for one sport of a multi-sport event. This page shows the medalists, not all results. Weightlifting for example is divided into 15 events, I didn't create 15 pages (and don't intend to). As for putting every result onto one page: the NGs have 300+ events. That's too much I'd presume. --Wlift84 (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a results page. Maybe medalists but even that is pushing it. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Major multi-sport events have overview pages for individual sports. I only speak for the page I created, not every Afd listed. There's little difference to established articles like:

Weightlifting at the 2013 Southeast Asian Games

Weightlifting at the 2015 Pan American Games

Weightlifting at the 2005 West Asian Games

Weightlifting at the 2014 Asian Games

Weightlifting at the 2013 Mediterranean Games

The stated reason of "non-notable" is plainly wrong. Since the article National Games of China does still exists I presume it was deemed relevant years ago. --Wlift84 (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are international events, versus this (which is a national event). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would create a medalists page for all sports per year. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, but does the lack of internationality itself decrease notablity/relevance? If I'm comparing attendance and results of say:

Athletics at the 2011 Pan Arab Games

Athletics at the 2013 National Games of China

I'm noticing that the NG feature an equally high amount of relevant athletes (i.e. have articles) and results themselves which are sometimes worse, but especially for women plenty better (i.e. world level by international medalists). The reasoning currently given, a violation of WP:ATH, is not properly explained as that page does not directly address this topic. --Wlift84 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin should note that every article after Also adding the following for the same reasons and they are all referenced were added to this AfD after the above comments. T. Canens (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, Merge specific athletics events Far too many articles have been put up here and very little care has been given to both the nomination and the comments. I spent several weeks researching Athletics at the National Games of China. It is a key topic in the sport's history with multiple defining moments for the both sport itself and Chinese sporting history. There are multiple sources of high repute. The same can be said of Athletics at the 2013 National Games of China and the like, which was a major competition that produced nationally historic moments by some of the world's best athletes. I'm less of a weightlifting expert, but the competition between multiple world record holders and Olympic champions should say enough.
The idea that even comment on the medallists at these competitions "is pushing it" demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of both the topic and its relevance. The Chinese Games don't get a lot of coverage in English due to systemic bias, not due to any lack of actual relevance. There is a reason why all the most important Chinese figures from the President downwards are present at these games, as are all their top sporting figures. Needless to say, I also would have appreciated a heads up that several weeks worth of my work was to be deleted, rather than coming across it completely by chance. SFB 00:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 25 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, 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) 02:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Oikonomidis (violinists)[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. He has some records in the discography, but the only record company I've found is Oikonomidis MUSIC, presumably not a major record label. No indications of anything else that makes him notable. Sjö (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd like to say Merge or Redirect, since there seems to be some non-RS which might indicate minimal notability, but there are no obvious targets to redirect or merge to. Only significant coverage appears to be in one blog-type article and a bio on a related artist's web site (the non-RS). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the result is "delete" then the dab page Nikos Oikonomidis should be deleted as well. It only lists this violinist and a painter of unknown notability.Sjö (talk) 06:57, 26 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) 06:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.discogs.com/artist/1945496-%CE%9D%CE%AF%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%82-%CE%9F%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%AF%CE%B4%CE%B7%CF%82--Samizambak (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because anyone an add anything they want to Discogs, it is generally not considered a reliable source of information. Thanks for the information, though. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:26, 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) 00:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiqah Shasha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BIO. i could not find significant coverage. In the last AfD, none of the keep voters actually gave coverage. Also links to very few articles LibStar (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails the WP:GNG. I couldn't even find an independent source confirming her existence, let alone significant coverage. The only source listed is Lucknow - A Veritable Goldmine, a book about a town that doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article. There is nothing about her life that suggests more/better sources are likely to be found. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Lucknow: a small village approximately 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) east of Orange.[10] It is a historic mining town with small residential, small industrial and commercial with most being farmland.", from wikiarticle on Orange, New South Wales, that exists, so could have an article, just saying. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 22 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) 06:22, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ameri Holdings[edit]

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

no evidence for notability .first ref is a listing, second a brief press release, 3rd a one sentence notice. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was creating the page since a friend who works there asked me to. It is not a paid editing. The links seemed convincing to me and I know the company to be a reputed one. I do not have the details right now but they have possibly won a number of awards as well. I was creating the article in draft space and was following protocols but some new account abruptly moved it into mainspace without proper discussion. In case it is not found to be notable could you please move it back to draft space? I do not wish the work to be unnecessarily lost. In the meantime I can try to find out if they are actually a notable organisation. I had known it to be a reputable and credible firm. Anasuya.D (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article and this. Ameri Holdings is also known as Ameri100. Anasuya.D (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is unclear why the employee who asked for the article or the WP:SPA who moved the article into mainspace thought this firm to be of encyclopaedic notability. Whether a company is "reputable and credible" is not relevant here, and the article content indicates nothing more than a SAP consultancy going about its business. Nor are my searches finding anything better than routine announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as clear advertising alone and the history confirms it. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: I had been unaware of the advertising nature of the previous articles that had been written and deleted. The present one that I was writing is by no means of advertising nature. this source is an independent publication showing that the company ranks 182 in 2016 Technology Fast 500 Ranking of North America. I admit that I too cannot find much written (other than routine press releases) about the company and the present material can make up no more than a stub. I will try to look up more sources. If the article is kept I can assure that I would monitor it so that it does not turn into a promotional article. Anasuya.D (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC) I withdraw my stand. Anasuya.D (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I approve the withdrawal of my vote. Diptanshu^Talk 11:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Check page 28 of CIO Review magazine. There is an article on Ameri100. It seems to be from an independent source. Besides Giri Devanur, CEO and president of Ameri100 has been a finalist for best entrepreneur of the year and that was because of the promising work he did for this company (this link does not seem to be a PR release to me). I think that these parameters can establish the notability of the organization. However, the article should be carefully patrolled to ensure that it does not turn into a promotional one as the previous attempts had tried to make. Diptanshu^Talk 09:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC) We withdraw our support. On behalf of me and my husband. Anasuya.D (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I validate the change in stand. Diptanshu^Talk 11:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CIO-Review fails as it is not an *independent* source since that entire section relies on quotes from the company or their CEO. The fact that their CEO has been a finalist for best entrepeneur of the year might be something if the CEO were to get an article, but notability is not inherited by the company. The NJBiz article *is* a PR news release. It uses the exact same wording as this PR release on the PRNewsWire site.

-- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Diptanshu^Talk 18:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:::However, I would like to differ from you in relation to your view regarding the entrepreneurship award prospect for the CEO. Although the article is not on the CEO, the CEO was actually being credited for his entrepreneurial effort namely Ameri100. So, in this case the two are to be considered interchangeably - this is what I feel. You could also refer to this and this source. Diptanshu^Talk 18:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Reframed own stand after consideration of the viewpoints.-From me and my husband. Anasuya.D (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I validate the change in stand. Diptanshu^Talk 11:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But notability isn't inherited. The award was not "Company of the Year", it was "Entrepeneur of the Year" and the CEO was nominated. (Also note, it wasn't the executive team or the company as a whole, it was solely for the CEO). WP:NOTINHERITED states Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. This is usually phrased as "____ is notable, because it is associated with Important Subject." The "Important Subject" in your example is the CEO and you appear to be saying that Ameri Holdings is notable because it is associated with Giri Devanur who was nominated got an award. That fails the test for notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even though many of in depth coverage might be lacking, this company is definitely among the emerging companies with entrepreneurial credibilities. The ranking shows the same. The CEO's award is also due to his entrepreneurial efforts on behalf of this company. So, the company definitely inherits the credit. The CIO Reviews article seems independent. Quoting from the CEO does not make it promotional. FutuGo (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Emerging company. A lot of acquisitions (as evident from press releases). Possibly the only company working aggressively to consolidate the SAP Services companies (Try doing a Google Search on this topic). The present page does not seem to have an advertising tone. So, I suggest keeping the page. Zombalu (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !votes above have been struck. Lepricavark (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Admin User:FutuGo has 3 edits and the very first edit was to place this article into main space. User:Zombalu created an account today (31st Jan) and spent less than 30 minutes editing but all of their edits at AfDs which is a surprising place for a first time editor to start. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My response is located at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anasuya.D. That is not a sockpuppet account. Anasuya.D (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of how the company is different from many others in the branch. Exactly because the company is emerging, it's prematurely to judge its impact. Brandmeister^talk 15:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "CIO Review magazine" is not an independent source; the article mostly likely created for promotion alone. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Prusky[edit]

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

Tagged with orphan and notability since 2011. Highly promotional and lacking independent references. Most references given and bad links, primary sources, or trivial mentions. Article was created by a blocked user. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG MB 05:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising alone and none of it satisfies any of our policies because the sources are then also advertised announcements; there's enough suggesting improvements aren't the level needed, and thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Promotional article. Sources in article do nothing to establish notability and Google and NYT searches provides nothing as well. CBS527^Talk 03:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted A7. Peridon (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Wesley[edit]

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

This Article does not meet WP:Bio and WP:GNG well as WP:N. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 04:28, 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 with WP:SALT, although I am not opposed to unsalting in the event that enough are found to demonstrate that he passes WP:GNG at some later time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dauren Mussa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An article about the subject has been deleted three times. Does not seem to meet the GNG or WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. If deleted again, request salting. Miniapolis 01:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stowarzyszenie Harcerstwa Katolickiego Zawisza[edit]

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

Lacks notability Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep although the English version is unreferenced, there are references on the Polish edition. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request admin void three related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Sudan Girl Guides Association/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Top Achiever Scouts/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stowarzyszenie Harcerstwa Katolickiego Zawisza as WP:WIKIHOUNDING by User:Sportsfan 1234 per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Harassment.23Wikihounding_by_User:Sportsfan_1234- There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rationale of Graeme Bartlett, there are references on the Polish edition, and extra care should be observed regarding WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS per non-Anglosphere topics.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would expect the National Scouting Association of any country to be notable. Whether it is in fact notable may depend on whether the membership of 3300 refers to members (scouts) or to scout troops: if the latter, it is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. @Peterkingiron: Note that this is not the Polish National Scouting Organisation. That's the Polish Scouting and Guiding Association. This is a fairly small Catholic scouting organisation which is separate from the main national association. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the sources I see as snippets at [14] are likely sufficient for more than coverage in passing. Without being able to see them fully, I cannot vote keep, but neither do I see sufficient grounds for deletion. At worst, this should be merged to History of Scouting in Poland, through considering I see mostly keep votes above, I don't think it is necessary. I'll ping expert on Polish scouting, User:Halibutt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There does seem to be sufficient, if minor coverage. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:33, 3 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) 00:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Drive[edit]

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

Does not meet requirements of WP:BAND for notability and does not claim notability. Rogermx (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Band. No notable recognition other than the fact that their music exists. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wiprud[edit]

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

I do not believe the subject meets WP:Author or WP:GNG. There's almost no coverage of this person other than a few expected links (amazon, goodreads, own website etc) and the awards listed are not notable. Rayman60 (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the encyclopedia.com article is sig coverage in an established reliable source here and his books have been reviewed in reliable sources such as Publishers Weekly, also New York Times article which profiles him and is referenced in the encyclopedia.com article, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude but, Rayman60, do you follow me around and seek todelete what I write? My article Randall Hicks was well researched and he is notable in his field, and you seek to delete that. Now you are doing it again here with this article I created. Brian Wiprud has many books out, they are well reviewed by substantial sources. Wikipedia should constantly grow with new authors and people. Thanks. Gelo962. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well researched article with sufficient sources. Longevitydude (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note added a profile of him in the NYTimes. It is a profile of his work as an engineer, published well before his his first novel was published.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won Barry Award (for crime novels). There are feature stories form which article can be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:32, 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sentro ng Wikang Filipino[edit]

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

References consist only of sources lacking independence. Subject would need evidence of coverage in independent reliable secondary sources in any language to be retained. KDS4444 (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Included independent sources. I hope that this will get considered. SWF is a nationally-recognized research and publishing arm in the Philippines. In fact it is a National Book Awards awardee as Publisher of the Year. Isko1901 (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with both of the references that are used for what looks like could be a significant award either lack independence or are primary sources. Citing the web page of the organization that gives out the awards as evidence of notability is not evidence of notability-- what would count towards notability is if a newspaper (a national one) carried an article about the publishing house receiving the award from the critics circle and discussed the publishing house in the course of its coverage. That is called an independent secondary source! That is what this article needs in order to be retained. Getting an award is great, but we need to know that the award really matters before we can use it to get a sense of notability of the recipient. Can you find such sources? KDS4444 (talk) 11:55, 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) 06:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of the Philippines Diliman - This is weird, I could have sworn the organization received more coverage in sources, as I occassionally hear about it in the news. But the only source I could find specifically about it is a video report by GMA News, which doesn't really seem to be enough to establish notability. However, a redirect to its parent organization shouldn't hurt as it is a possible search term and it could have a mention in the aforementioned article (full disclosure: I am currently a student of the University of the Philippines Manila, but this does not affect my opinion of the article subject's notability). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just Ask My Children (2001)[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:NFILM/WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent third party reviews. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 02:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NFILM. Non-noteable film with little to no recognition. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 06:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Searches found nothing helpful. Rotten Tomatoes source used in the article indicates "no critic reviews yet." Gab4gab (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 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 keep . At this point it appears enough independent sources have been located to confirm that the article passes WP:GNG, however marginally. And I was particularly swayed by User:BloodyKnuckles1' well-reasoned argument about nerds. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool S[edit]

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

WP:GNG. Incidentally I live in Bristol, a much-graffed city, and spend quite a lot of time photographing both the pieces and the accumulation of tags. I have never seen this device... TheLongTone (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually can't believe someone hasn't heard of it. Just ask any schoolkid (or, even better, someone who grew up in the 90's) if they'd seen that S. I grew up in Sharjah and went to school in Choueifat Sharjah. That's where I learned to draw it. Just last year, my family migrated to Melbourne. The most likely reason I know about it and you don't is that I am only 12. Besides, you can't delete it because I tried to be as nerdy as I can just so you editors don't delete it. BloodyKnuckles1 (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~There really is just that single Vice article -- which was picked up and mirrored elsewhere. Fails WP:GNG. Delete.~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, actually, the vice article was written on July 27, 2016, and the S was there long before that. And what part of WP:GNG does it fail? I actually don't see why you can't just leave it and do something else. That won't hurt anyone (no offense). BloodyKnuckles1 (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how it works. See WP:ITEXISTS. It doesn't matter when the "s" came into existence it's when and if it has achieved WP:NOTABILITY, which we establish through WP:Reliable sources. Not existence. You're fairly new here and you've stated that you're a young editor, so a lot of these rules may be unfamiliar to you. But over time Wikipedia has amassed a rather large set of policies about how to determine if things or people pass a certain threshold of notability. Often they do not. It doesn't mean there isn't something real or perhaps interesting there, it's just that this encyclopedia has certain benchmarks that need to be met, in terms of significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Besides, you can't delete it because I tried to be as nerdy as I can just so you editors don't delete it." Probably the best "keep" rationale I've ever encountered. freshacconci talk to me 21:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually lean towards keeping it had it not been written the way it is now. But for now it reads more or less like a guidebook or manual which is not acceptable for an online encyclopedia. Note that the creator of this page has had several of his pages deleted, presumably for this very reason, and might not have spent enough time reading our article creation policies. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Found another source by searching "pointy s", one of the alternate names. Possibly there are more, but apart from blogs I'm not finding much. Ewulp (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. It's an article from Print (magazine) that doesn't seem to be a mirror of the Vice article. Change to neutral. It pays to be nerdy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've made changes to the page to reduce the emphasis on drawing instructions, to discuss the contested origin of the symbol and incorporate the source that User:Ewulp found. I'm inclined to keep the page by instinct but I'm not !voting because I recognise I'm still a noob and don't have strong feelings about it. Anecdotally, everyone I knew at school ('90s, near Bristol) drew this frequently. It does seem like something of a phenomenon, but I haven't seen sources giving more objective data about how widespread it was or where it came from. Mortee (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Squeaks by GNG as per Vice, Print, NYU Local. No prejudice against a potential merge to Graffiti. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I remember this right back to the '70s. We used to tag school desks, each other's supplies and whatever with all sorts of stylized letters. This probably predates all of us. That doesn't make it notable, though. It's more a font character than "art" or "graffiti" or anything else. Definitely not "cool" because people the age of the editors' parents (probably grandparents) did this, and everyone knows nothing parents do is cool (nothing you'd like to think about, anyway). Unless we want an article for every letter in every font, this is going to be a delete. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After the work inspired by this discussion, I think this is an article worth keeping. It describes a phenomenon of some significance with decent references, and I consider that it's doing no harm by staying here. Mortee (talk) 21:05, 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Founders Cup Finals[edit]

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

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

Keep Standard finals article for a professional sports league. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as I give here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Founders Cup playoffs although I would support a very limited merge of any content that can be reliably referenced because this is a final. The Google News links do not show any obvious candidates for valid sources though. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the Founders Cup (PIHA) (of which this is a single instance of) has been deleted at AFD as being non-notable as have each of the PIHA seasons. Clearly non-notable. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:48, 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Four National Figure Skating Championships[edit]

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

Unremarkable event. Also relies on one source for referencing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added news media coverage from the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia:^[1]^[2]^[3]

References

^ "Sourozenci Březinovi obhájili domácí krasobruslařské tituly" (in Czech). Česká televize. 20 December 2015.
^ "Kolejne sukcesy łyżwiarzy Axla Toruń. Złoto i srebro pod choinkę" (in Polish). Toruń: Gazeta Wyborcza. 23 December 2015.
^ "Krasokorčuľovanie: Rajičová aj duo Csölley - Testová obhájili" (in Slovak). Aktuality. 20 December 2015.

Comment, above was added by Hergilei. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 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 08:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the newly discovered sources. Smartyllama (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 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 NgAgo. Kurykh (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Han Chunyu[edit]

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

In light of the fact that his techniques and alleged results are questioned, I think the notability is also questionable. The university that he teaches at is itself not a major academic institution, it appears, based on the tenor of the Chinese Wikipedia article. (It lacks an English Wikipedia article.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to NgAgo. ... but notability is based on sources, and I think he meets WP:GNG. 646 Google News hits in English, over 115,000 hits in Chinese. The English article for his university is Hebei University of Science and Technology. Timmyshin (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NgAgo#Controversy per WP:BIO1E. The controversy appears to be well reported, see for example Nature, but this is the only thing the subject appears to be notable for. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Han's technology is focused and praised by many scholars (at least in first months), and he was respected by many Nationalists and officers in mainland China. Even if his NgAgo technology is faked, the article may still be keeped. For example, the biography of Haruko_Obokata still exists. --!Panzerkampfwagen! (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect until technology is proven. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect as the clear solution given what the simple article information conveys. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to NgAgo. NgAgo appears to be the only thing he's notable for (WP:BLP1E). Doesn't meet WP:PROF individually. – Joe (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable by WP:PROF (the one paper discussed above is cited only 60 times in Google scholar) and nothing to merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wandmacher[edit]

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

Creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Most contributors to the page have been blocked as sockpuppets. And prior to a me finding the article (through a sockpuppet investigation) and attempting CSD and PROD, the article was 3 sentences long and then a list of his credits (like a job resume), most of which were unsourced. With only one reference. Since then, a new user account with only one edit has added information and references, but still does not demonstrate notability. Article should be deleted. Kellymoat (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Situation update - The new user I spoke of has also been confirmed to be a sock puppet. Kellymoat (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I think this is a good nomination as the article at that time was in poor shape. However, some research indicates that, while the references are not strong and are scattered among non-authoritative sites, they are relatively plentiful and - I think - squeak across the notability threshold. I was in the midst of editing the article when the font size on my view of Wikipedia blew up (no other sites) and I cannot now effectively edit. I will try to return and supplement.--Rpclod (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 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. Even if Rody19901504 is unrelated to the sockpuppets who voted here, a single week keep is no real opposition relative to several delete votes, including one string one. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vardan Sholinian[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA - no top tier fights Peter Rehse (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Routine sports coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – He actually just recently fought for the CXF World title and lost split decision to former TUF competitor. I just updated it. And also he fought for RFA which is top televised promotion against Bojan Veličković who competes in the UFC. Sholinian is one of very few popular Armenian mixed martial artist who also represents Ukraine at the high level stage, so I think this article meets WP:NMMA and in his references list there's enough links to meet WP:GNG as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izukiviktor (talk • contribs) 03:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Keep I saw Sholinian's fight against Bojan Veličković it was televised on national television AXS TV he fought for RFA. I think this article should stay. I think it meetst WP:NMMA besides he's young fighter and Pretty sure he'll keep fighting on big stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexiomorono (talk • contribs) 03:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Comment I think this article should stay. These days MMA is very big so it's not only about fighters fighting in the UFC or Bellator. There's many other organizations should be considered just like in boxing. RFA and CXF are big organizations in MMA world and Vardan Sholinian is signed with them. But I'm not going to vote, will just leave a comment for future voters. Just my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.72.201 (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Keep Totally meets WP:NMMA there's more than twenty different reliable mma sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2ECC:CC00:449A:FEEA:F275:40A2 (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Clerk note:: The two IPs are evidently the same person, while Alexiomorono has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Izukiviktor. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izukiviktor. GAB^gab 03:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The insistence that the subject meets WP:NMMA is curious. It is pretty clear that the subject does not.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing genuinely convincing for the standards here. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you eliminate the sock/meat puppets and the indefinitely blocked article author, there seems to be no support for keeping this article. The claims of him meeting WP:NMMA are clearly not true and routine sports coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Looks like he is pretty notable foreign fighter who represents his country in United States and has lots of reliable sources from different mma websites, few of them in Russian language though and lots of interviews and etc. on youtube too, so looks pretty notable to me. He trains with Ronda Rousey and in one of youtube videos she was in his corner. Although I say weak keep because doesn't seem like he meets WP:NMMA yet. I did some research and doesn't look like that RFA and CXF organizations are in the list. Also RFA was merged with Legacy Fighting Championship and now it's LFA so needs some updates on that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Striking the 4 keep opinions as sockpuppets, which I suspect the above user is just based on behavioral evidence as well. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised. Same with the 2 users below. With all the socking going on in this AFD it just seems suspicious that all 3 of the accounts were created after this AFD was started. To be fair it could be a coincidence they all ended up here. It would be helpful if they could point out some independent, reliable sources instead of saying "lots of reliable sources". All I could find was fight result listings and some youtube entries. CBS527^Talk 13:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A clear-cut case of failing to meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Lincolnite (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AFD was closed by a brand new spa account, Bobbybad (talk · contribs). The circumstances around this AFD make such a close completely inappropriate. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I'm not seeing where he meets WP:NMMA at all. Also, the amount of what appears to be meatpupptery here is a bit concerning. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. General consensus to keep the article (non-admin closure). Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Malta[edit]

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

Nothing but a guide for commuters or tourists on Malta's bus lines. No evidence of notability. A maintenance tag has been present for three years and noone elected to (try to) resolve the issue. That should mean more than enough time has been given to allow this article to develop into something worth retaining. Surely all that's worth mentioning on Malta's bus transport can be inlcuded on ~~Malta's article~~the article on Malta's public transport. T v x1 02:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep basically per my comments at the nominator's other related Afd. Main list of this type do seem to be allowed at WP:BUSOUTCOMES. This would seem to be not substantially different from a broad range of such lists for jurisdictions of various sizes around the world, grouped at Category:Lists of bus routes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. WP:BUSOUTCOMES does not dictate that every bus related subject is inherently notable. Notability always has to be substantiated. Moreover, we're not a mirror of the websites of bus company's.T v x1 02:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Of course. But BUSOUTCOMES expressly allows for "suitable lists" that group individual lines. I'm interested in hearing what other, uninvolved editors have to say on the matter. Having a discussion is why I removed your speedy deletion tag. This isn't for you to settle. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it doesn't say every such list is suitable. You haven't provided any clear argument why this particular list is suitable. We already have an article on public transport in Malta. Why have a second dedicated to part of it, while the main article still has room for expansion?Tvx1 02:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it does not. Note that the nominator has altered his nomination statement accordingly. (That's done typically at Afd in a more transparent fashion by using ~~strikethrough~~ -- but I know from our recent interaction you're not swayed by guidelines that aren't mandatory, so...). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please stop assuming bad faith. I have altered the opening statement yet again per your preference.T v x1 02:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not my preference, it's WP:AFDFORMAT. I'm simply repeating your words back to you, as the guidelines on changing Afd comments are no less sensible recommendations than the guidelines on not reverting when editors remove a speedy tag with explanation. Whatever the outcomes of yours Afds, you've made a right mess of things, on what should have been straightforward nominations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a legitimate fork of Malta bus, which seems notable enough. Some refactoring of both articles is going to be necessary in order to have them refer to each other as necessary. "Pepper" @ 03:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malta bus is only 27kB in size at the moment. There's more than enough room left there to move whatever's suitable from this article to that article.T v x1 05:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, seeing as the changes in bus route operators and bus routes do parallel each other, but I think keeping the list and prose separate would be for the best. "Pepper" @ 05:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But why? You have to give justified arguments why it should kept. Not simply that it should be kept.T v x1 14:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Usually I'm all for deletion of small non notable route lists however country capitals and or country route lists should be kept, The article could do with sourcing however editors should improve this not resort to deletion, Keep and improve. –Davey2010^Talk 18:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag requesting improvement has been in the article for three years, no one bothered to act upon it. That tells more than enough about the interest in it and the value of keeping it.T v x1 19:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPs have been improving this for a good few years, What may be of no value to you may be of encycolopedic value to someone else, There's no limit as to when improvements to articles should be made. –Davey2010^Talk 20:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly a list of bus routes in a country where the bus system is the major form of transportation and carries up to a million passengers a week meets the requirements of WP:BUSOUTCOMES. CBS527^Talk 16:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not of it the content is utterly encyclopedic, per the comment below. We shouldn't be keeping such lists just for the sake of keeping them. Wikipedia is not a database of bus lines, nor is it a travel guide.T v x1 22:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments above. Nördic Nightfury 08:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL. Such list are often out of date and misleading. They are original research and serve no encyclopedic purpose. People should go to the operators' websites for route information where it is more likely to be correct. Many similar lists have been deleted and this should go the same way

All capital route lists tend to be kept (List of bus routes in London being the perfect example), These lists don't ever become outdated because editors/IPs tend to regularly update them. –Davey2010^Talk 19:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no notable routes in this list and no certainty that they will be up to date. Unencyclopedic fancruft.Charles (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FK Sarajevo-HŠK Zrinjski Mostar rivalry[edit]

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

notable?? no sources in article, just a collection of results between two teams ⇒ Chris0282 (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't sound like a rivalry meriting its own article, it can be mentioned in the club pages (if sourced, which shouldn't be a problem if it is a grudge match!).Crowsus (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable rivalry Spiderone 19:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sherrie Rose[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources. All I found via Google is some rumors according to which she claimed another more notable actor fathered her son. That's not enough for an encyclopedia article. Back in the 2011 deletion discussion editors said that there were "plenty of notable sources" and that "Google News hits establish notability"; yet no specific sources were presented nor were any added to the article in the years since then. Huon (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources were actually presented in the 2013 deletion discussion (I didn't expect an article whose only reference is IMDb to have survived one deletion discussion, much less two). Of those, only one gives any details whatsoever about Rose, and that's the Miami Herald calling her a "local actress". She wrote, directed and starred in one movie, Me and Will (plus other apparently less significant roles) - but I don't think the movie is notable either, and Rotten Tomatoes knows of no critical reviews. So my opinion remains unchanged: Not notable, does not meet WP:GNG (despite numerous evidence-less claims to the contrary in previous deletion discussions). Huon (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some articles:

Bikes & Spikes (USA) March 1999, pg. 36-38, "Me and Will" Steppin' Out (USA) 4 March 1998, pg. 26, 27, 32, 33, 54, 55, by: Chaunce Hayden, "Hollywood's Sexiest Rebels" Venice (USA) February 1998, Vol. X, Iss. 5, pg. 16, by: Cynthia Maller, "Where There's A Will" OneWorld (USA) 1997, Vol. 3, Iss. 4, pg. 90 - 91, by: Amanda De Cadenet, "Renegade Filmmaking - Two Women Break all the Hollywood Rules"

Buzz (USA) November 2002, pg. 42, by: Kari Mozena, "Seen" The Hollywood Reporter (USA) 8 October 2002, pg. 3, 109, by: Chris Gardner, "Rookie director Nicholas to spin indie film 'D.J.'" Femme Fatales (USA) 17 March 2000, Vol. 8, Iss. 13, pg. 32-37+60, by: Ari Bass, "Me & Will" Screen International (USA) 24 February 2000, pg. 44, "Screenings: Me and Will"

Femme Fatales (USA) 28 May 1999, Vol. 7, Iss. 16, pg. 32-34, by: Sue Feinberg & Judd Hollander, "Aftershock" Chattanooga Times & Free Press (USA) 11 May 1999, by: John Levesque, "Cable Offers Way To Escape From Sweeps" Boston Herald (USA) 7 May 1999, by: Jeannette Johnston, "Women Filmmakers kick-start Sundance Channel fest" The Hollywood Reporter (USA) 7 May 1999, by: Joan Van Tassel, "Me & Will" Entertainment Weekly (USA) 7 May 1999, Iss. 484, by: Mike Flaherty, "What to Watch" Time Out (USA) 6 May 1999, "She Said Cinema: Me & WIll" Los Angeles Times (USA) 2 May 1999, "Me & Will" Soma (USA) May 1999, by: Laura Morgan, "Chick Flicks" Satellite Direct (USA) May 1999, pg. 22, "She Said Cinema" Stuff (USA) May 1999, by: Caryn Aviv, "The Tube Hot Stuff" Switch (Japan) May 1999, Vol. 17, Iss. 4, pg. 72-76, by: Higashiay Masayoshi, "Bike and Road, L.A. and Tokyo" Athens Observer (USA) 29 April 1999, by: Eric Bergeson, "Me & Will ride into the Sundance sunset" Japan Times, The (USA) 19 March 1999, Vol. 5, Iss. 160, pg. 16, by: Giovanni Fazio, "Gems in New York's indie rough" The Hollywood Reporter (USA) 1 February 1999, by: Lynette Rice, "TV Talk" Daily Variety (USA) 29 January 1999, by: Richard Katz, "Sundance will air 'Will'" Daily Variety Gotham (USA) 28 January 1999, by: Richard Katz, "Sundance net sets up femme fest" Filmmaker Magazine (USA) 1 December 1998, Vol. 6, Iss. 2, by: Mary Glucksman, "Production Update Me and Will" The Hollywood Reporter (USA) 28 October 1998, by: Duane Byrge, "Cool runnings in store at Virginia film festival" The Observer (USA) 21 October 1998, Vol. XXI, Iss. 42, pg. 14-15, "Beatniks and cool cats are featured at this year's Virginia Film Festival" Freewheelin' (USA) October 1998, pg. 44 - 48, by: Eric Grant, "Me & Her & Will Power" The Tolucan Times (USA) 15 July 1998, Vol. 54, Iss. 28, pg. 11, by: Katharine Kramer, "'Thelma and Louise' Meets 'Easy Rider'" New Times Los Angeles (USA) 26 March 1998, Vol. 3, Iss. 13, pg. 59, by: Lisa Derrick, "City of Night" Plunge (USA) March 1998, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, pg. 6, by: Newman, "Expose Film" Bikini (USA) February 1998, Iss. 29, by: David Jenison, "These Girls Give Good Cinema" Daily News (USA) 24 September 1995, "Independent: Up-and-coming film maker Sherrie Rose" Femme Fatales (USA) , Vol. 3, Iss. 2, by: Ari Bass, "Sherrie Rose From the Grave" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.165.65 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the above list is copy-pasted from here. 96.40.165.65, have you personally reviewed any of those references? What do they say about Rose? Could you improve the article based on those sources? Huon (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Vicente Aliaga[edit]

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

Cannot find evidence of notability. Owen (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the refs in the article establish notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really seeing notability. Minimal article with essentially no content. Jeff Quinn (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm unsure about this AfD. It seems that at least one of the sources included in the article, i.e. Robert Aldrich & Garry Wotherspoon (2005), Who's Who in Contemporary Gay and Lesbian History Vol.2: From World War II to the Present Day, Routledge, [15] includes Aliagas and discuss him to a non-trivial extent. He's also mentioned (in fact, his work has been cited) in Jesús-Pedro Lorente (2005), Historia de la crítica del arte: textos escogidos y comentados, Zaragoza: Prensas Univesitarias de Zaragoza, pp. 628-637, [16].

He's also full professor at the Polytechnic University of Valencia [17], and has published extensively in Spanish in his field of research [18]. His artistic exhibitions (which he either curated or commissioned), have also been featured in Spanish media [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], as well as in other less independent sources such as [25], [26]. Thus, my issue is not whether he is notable.

I'm less sure, however, about the extent to which his notability is reasonably established by significant coverage in sufficient independent and reliable sources. Aside from the first reference mentioned, all of the others either mention him only in passing (thus not satisfying WP:SIGCOV), or are from websites where he is employed (UPV website profile) or projects which he is involved in (such as [27] and [28]) (and thus not sufficiently independent).

For now, I guess I support a weak keep. I would like to see comments from more experienced and knowledgeable editors, however, such as perhaps from WikiProject Arts. Though I'm not sure how the procedure is to RfC them within an AfD.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 20:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 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 01:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 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 Speedy delete CSD#G7. Vanamonde (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hazeley Herald[edit]

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

As noted by User:Largoplazo, only ten Google hits, nothing even resembling notability. Non-notable student publication. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning explained by nom. General Ization ^Talk 01:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would first like to thank you for following up on your claim in such a civil and straightforward fashion. I would like to first provide context as to why it was made. I am a student of the academy and me and a friend were up tonight (11:00-12:00 UTC) looking at the school page. My friend vandalised the page, in a fairly minor fashion and I set about to fix it. I did it swiftly and noticed that our internal paper had a reference, but no page. As a learning exercise, I took it upon myself to quickly dot one up. It only took 5 or so minutes, because I already knew what there was to know, as an internal. I am fully aware that the page has little significance outside of our little school, but I can promise as a student for 4 years at the academy that "The Hazeley Herald" was a real thing, that was printed. Unfortunately, as stated it lost significance quickly and after a few years it ceased completely as it became too expensive to run.

If this has not persuaded you of the fact that the article should maintain its existence, then I shall have to concede and delete the page. This will mean however, that on the main page nobody will ever be able to see the story of what became of the student piece.

~~AMassiveNerd (01:23UTC)~~

See WP:N for information about the notability policy that we are discussing here. The publication would have to meet the general notability guidelines at WP:GNG, and, I'm afraid, it certainly doesn't. Mere existence, even significance within a small group of people but not outside of it, is insufficient for inclusion. Largoplazo (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I shall have to retire for the night where I am, continue to post your points here if you want to and I'll check them tomorrow. ~~AMassiveNerd~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMassiveNerd (talk • contribs) 01:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable student news outfit. Unencyclopaedic. CalzGuy (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on what Robert McClenon noted above that my reason had been in my earlier PROD nomination. Largoplazo (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys, you have made your case. The article will be deleted now. Just have to figure out how to do that, new to wikipedia. ~~AMassiveNerd~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMassiveNerd (talk • contribs) 13:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion notice (db-author) made. ~~AMassiveNerd~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMassiveNerd (talk • contribs) 13:43, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodie (software)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Page creator has used WP:BOMBARDMENT to try to establish notability and stated on the talk page that The core hoodie project has had 59 contributors and 2000+ stars on github. I hope this shows General notability. This just shows people are using some code published to github. Nothing about this is notable. There are hundreds of thousands of packages on GitHub. Doesn't mean they all get pages on Wikipedia. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's my two cents: Not all Github packages should get Wikipedia entries, but some do i.e. the notable ones :-)

The work on beginner-friendliness and commitment to inclusion and diversity (as noted in one of the references) is notable IMHO.

Hoodie is a javascript package similar in size and notability as these packages (which have also have Wikipedia articles):

https://github.com/DmitryBaranovskiy/raphael/

https://github.com/chaplinjs/chaplin

Or closely related project

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CouchDB

Significant coverage - The WP:BOMBARDMENT was done in good faith to show that a number of different sources pointed to this being notable (and as general good practice to support claims made in Wikipedia). The references show "Significant coverage" with more than trivial mention. There are hits on Google Books & Stack Exchange and Hacker News (although not on Google News). That said, there are no books published entirely or significantly about Hoodie (AFAIK).

Reliable - There are a number secondary, independent sources cited.

Independent of the subject - The article excludes advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website (except for the link/logo where appropriate). Hoodie project is non-commercial.

I guess these things are subjective but my gut feeling was this project was really interesting (at least to me) because it breaks down barriers between frontend and backend of web design - thus helps more people easily create web applications. And that's important to know/notable for web developers and people interested in the web. And I was surprised there wasn't a Wikipedia article about it. I don't contribute much to Wikipedia in terms of edits (mainly because its coverage is so amazing!) but when I see a gap I do occasionally spend the time to fill it. --Fozy81 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It just about meets the GNG in my judgment. The Infoworld article cited in the article is a reliable source. This article from Sitepoint (who are a reliable source in my view - they have an editorial process, they publish books, are generally well-respected) and this tutorial from Gadget Magazine (similar). The opensource.com article used in the references also contributes to notability, although in a different way - in being about the community management side of the project. Opensource.com seems to be a reliable source - they have an independent editorial oversight process with named authors and editors, the authors seem to be reasonably knowledgable about the subject matter. Four sources, broadly reliable and GNG compliant. I'd agree that number of contributors or 'stars' on Github are not a measure of notability (hell, I wrote WP:NUMFRIENDS!) but the GNG is still met regardless. I'm also not keen on accusing new editors of WP:BOMBARDMENT. One should assume good faith. The citations listed in the article are not a measure of notability under GNG, nor does the presence of a larger number of citations than might be expected for an article of that length mean that it is an attempt to feign being GNG. (An article can be unreferenced and still be GNG compliant, or it could have 50 citations and not meet the GNG. Part of the point of an AfD discussion is to verify whether the article is notable under GNG or other notability guidelines precisely because the references—or lack thereof—don't immediately answer that question.) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:42, 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 01:02, 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 List of Decepticons. (non-admin closure) f eminist 13:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crankcase (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character(s) in the Transformers universe. Little evidence of notability. (Disputed prod.) Josh Milburn (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons. As stated by the nominator, this is a minor character with no sources that would indicate notability. The character is already included in the List of Decepticons, so a simple Redirect is all this needs. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:50, 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 01:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons or delete. It's got a trivial mention in [29] from Newsarama, but the Google Books results are just novels. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:42, 3 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) 00:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Mighty Love[edit]

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

Sources are all WP:PRIMARY. Chart performance for Aleyce Simmonds version is chart that's on WP:BADCHARTS. Neither McCann's nor Herndon's version charted, nor did any version receive the kind of significant coverage a single would get. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from notable artists and songwriters. But as three artists recorded it, there isn't a singular redirect target, so deletion would be better Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Tim Nichols or Darrell Brown (musician). Independent release by several notable artists does meet WP:SONG criteria #3. However not finding significant coverage by independent RS still leads to a delete. The song is mentioned in the articles of two of the three co-writers. Possibly a redirect to one of those would be helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 18:25, 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 00:56, 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spume Island[edit]

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

Google Books returns only 14 hits, none of which appear to discuss this location in any depth. This island does not appear to qualify as notable by the terms of WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Also see Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. KDS4444 (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Castles and islands simply are notable. And it is even apparently named by the United Kingdom Antarctic Place-names Committee. --do ncr am 18:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Antarctic and subantarctic islands. (non-admin closure) f eminist 13:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbott Island[edit]

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

Non-notable uninhabited remote Antarctic island. Article has no references, and does not qualify under WP:GEOLAND or separately under WP:GNG. Does not appear to have received any non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources (note that Abbott Island in Antarctica is different from Abbott Island in Australia). WP:EXISTence doesn't mean notability. KDS4444 (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some geographic sources mentioning this but it is unclear to the exact location of this landform, my best guess is that it is used to refer to various islets between Brabant and Liege Island, all of which are pretty much rocks no bigger than maybe 40 cubic feet a piece. There are probably hundreds of thousands of these in the Palmer Archipelago, and it doesn't make sense to have an article on all of them. Here it is on Google maps], if you want to try and make some sense of it. I originally thought it could be the large-ish island of about 4km sqaured a little south of Liege Island, but after further research this appears to be Davis Island (Palmer Archipelago). Also, there are no sources for anything in this article and I think some or all of it may be a hoax.AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Antarctic and subantarctic islands It is mentioned over there, so a redirect wouldn't hurt. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:55, 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 00:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Antarctic and subantarctic islands Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Island[edit]

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

One of a hundred non-notable uninhabited remote Antarctic islands. Article has no references, and does not qualify under WP:GEOLAND or separately under WP:GNG. Has not received any non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. WP:EXISTence doesn't mean notability, WP:MAPOUTCOMES not withstanding. KDS4444 (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 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 00:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received non-trivial coverage in sources [30], the unsourced material may need to be removed for verifiability is an issue. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source identified by User:Champion, and presumably other mentions of this small, cold island. Some other editor may boldly merge it into Palmer Archipelago if that were restructured to hold a bit more detail on the individual islands. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of the island in the reference above is a WP:TRIVIAL one that does not include any in-depth coverage. But perhaps a merger into the Palmer Archipelago article would be more appropriate than deletion. KDS4444 (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:23, 3 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) 00:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Grachev (executive)[edit]

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

Lack of notability. XXN, 15:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete no secondary reliable sources. Lack of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2ED9:5200:48E5:F241:81E3:C5F6 (talk) 02:54, 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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of television stations in Brazil[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it lacks context. It Is a simple listing without context information and contains loosely related items. (See WP:NOTDIR) This article also has no sources because the information in it may be challenged so it fails WP:GNG. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 00:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Notability is based on the existence of sources, not the state of sourcing in the article. In this case, I presume there are many different notable television stations in Brazil that would have the necessary coverage available for each. Additionally, I wouldn't call the list composed of loosely related items: they are all directly related in the sense that they are all Brazilian television networks. Possible redirect targets include: Television in Brazil and List of television networks by country#Brazil. Mz7 (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a perfect ordinary and valid main list per Category:Lists of television channels by country and Category:Brazilian television networks, and WP:CLN. Could be renamed or tweaked, sure. No valid reason to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability issue is a non-starter. This just needs to be cleaned up and reformatted. It wouldn't take much time at all to retool this page into a rather useful list. See Category:Brazilian television networks for more. giso6150 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing wrong with the article title itself as such as subject (TV stations in the fifth most populous country in the world) would certainly pass WP:LISTN, it is clear the article needs expansion. Ajf773 (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. but could do with tidyng up. Mecha Bieber (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion nominator should take note of wp:CLNT which describes how categories, lists, and navigation templates are complementary, and generally supports a decision rule that if there's a category of things, there can be a list of those things. --do ncr am 17:35, 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) 16:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Veve[edit]

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

Contested prod. The player fails WP:RLN as has not played in a Super League or international match. Has only played in under-20 competition. Mattlore (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox until he plays a game, and at that point we can see where a SL standard squad playing in League One sits with the RLN quotient.Theanonymousentry (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails RLN and he's not even with Toronto anymore either, so no one can even claim joining them is sufficient to pass. Bwfcwarrior (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lis Smith[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a political organizer with no strong evidence of notability for anything more than existing. The referencing here consists of one article about the end of her personal relationship with Eliot Spitzer, and one article which namechecks her existence a single time as a giver of soundbite in an article about something else -- there's no substantive coverage being cited here about her work. As always, political campaign managers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles the moment it becomes nominally possible to verify that they exist -- they earn Wikipedia articles by being the subject of enough substantive media coverage to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the attention she has received is more related to who she was dating than her. A non-notable party functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I found many sources that quote her or refer to her as a top strategist, as well as specifically at the NY Times. Admittedly, there's not a lot about her. Is this WP:TOOSOON? Can we userfy this? Can we discuss this one more? Bearian (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real claim to notability. No significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources AusLondonder (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in the sources provided or found indicates that the subject is more than a political functionary going about her business. The various in-role quotes do not add up to anything substantial about her. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails POLITICIAN & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 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 Mindless Self Indulgence. (non-admin closure) f eminist 13:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Dunn (musician)[edit]

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

Not independently notable, and her only claim to notability is as a member of Mindless Self Indulgence. WP:NMUSIC makes it very clear that in such situations individual members' pages should be redirected to the article about the band. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mindless Self Indulgence. Note, User:Deconimus has been restoring the article repeatedly, without motivating these edits on the talk page, or adding reliable sources or evidence of independent notability, so this AfD is certainly worthwhile to establish consensus. --Slashme (talk) 08:57, 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 00:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mindless Self Indulgence. My searches found nothing helpful. Current article sources are a user contributed wiki article and Drum Magazine of July 2008. I don't have access to the magazine. Regardless, one magazine article isn't enough. Fails general and WP:BAND. Gab4gab (talk) 21:04, 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) f eminist 13:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tevfik Arif[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

For wikipedia article, subject must have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to show notability. The dated references of these articles on business rumours and a blog does not define significant, nor reliable coverage. As noted in the first time this article was deleted it appears that this is an obvious attempt to add Donald Trump controversy relating to anyone who has known him. Because this individual may have done business with Donald Trump at some point does not make him notable notability. Singhaarav52 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Notable international real estate developer.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets GNG with multiple reliable sources providing in-depth coverage. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 17:39, 3 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) 00:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rise to Ruins[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. No references, couldn't find any good ones. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. Only major coverage comes from Rock, Paper, Shotgun (search for Retro-Pixel Castles), and it's just announcements. Wait until the article starts to have substantive reviews from multiple, reliable sources. If the author wants to work in draftspace, fine, otherwise deletion is the best route. (Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?)) czar 20:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:GNG with in-depth coverage from reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreating in 6 months or so/moving to Draft space. I found surprisingly little coverage of this game except for some kickstarter announcements such as [31], [32], and [33]. I believe that it is very likely that when it is formally released, enough reviews will come out to provide significant coverage needed for WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:35, 3 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.

[pewresearch_voters-1] "Ideological Placement of Each Source's Audience", Pew Research, January 26, 2016, retrieved January 23, 2017

[pewresearch_voters_2014-2] Drew Desilver; Amy Mitchell (October 21, 2014), "Q/A: How Pew Research analyzed America's polarized media consumption habits", Pew Research, retrieved January 23, 2017

[journalism_2017-3] Jeffrey Gottfried; Michael Barthel; Amy Mitchell (January 18, 2017), "Trump, Clinton Voters Divided in Their Main Source for Election News. Fox News was the main source for 40% of Trump voters" Pew Research", Journalism, retrieved January 23, 2017

[CT151220-4] "Sourozenci Březinovi obhájili domácí krasobruslařské tituly" (in Czech). Česká televize. 20 December 2015.

[GW151223-5] "Kolejne sukcesy łyżwiarzy Axla Toruń. Złoto i srebro pod choinkę" (in Polish). Toruń: Gazeta Wyborcza. 23 December 2015.

[Aktuality-6] "Krasokorčuľovanie: Rajičová aj duo Csölley - Testová obhájili" (in Slovak). Aktuality. 20 December 2015.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]