Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 March	4 March >

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. MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of the Fallen[edit]

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

Unreferenced. No suggestion of notability Rathfelder (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of sources results in article failing WP:NMUSIC. DrStrauss talk 16:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rammsund[edit]

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

Non-notable band. All sources cited in the article are dead links (!?). Google news search returns a handful of results [1], none of which seams to contain WP:significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they are dead links, go close the Norwegian article too then. I put in new articles, this is a real band. Schwiiz (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable. If you look, Till Lindemann went to go see them. They are a huge hit in Norge, just because you haven't heard of them does not make them not notable. Schwiiz (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Norwegian, and I've never heard of this band. Sounds like a fun concept, though, a tribute band singing Rammstein songs in Nynorsk Norwegian.

I note that in 2005, a Norwegian news website quoted the band's promoter as describing the band as "eit lite, norsk coverband" ("a small, Norwegian cover band"). Nine years later, in 2014, the Norwegian newspaper Dagsavisen described Rammsund as "Et tributeband med humor og selvironi" ("A tribute band with humour and self-irony"). I could pretty much only find news notices stating that the band were playing in various locations, and that they promote the use of Nynorsk through their cover/tribute songs.

A fun concept, but is it notable enough for an article? Manxruler (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From where in Norway? Not second guessing you, just wondering. Jeg er sveitsisk. I do think they have reached many of the criteria on the musician rule page. Schwiiz (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? If the band is only known locally, in one region of Norway (or maybe amongst a not very large group of fans internationally?), then that does not support the possible notability of it. My point is, what reliable sources I can find on this band does not appear to me to indicate that the band is notable. Manxruler (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The band plays all over Southern Norway, the Inhabitable part. My sources listed on the article show.Schwiiz (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Inhabitable part"? Never heard that term used in connection with Norway. Peculiar. Manxruler (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just refers to how Nord-Norge is sparsely populated and frozen.Schwiiz (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any further, reliable, sources on this band? Something to support the claim that they are "a huge hit" in Norway? Manxruler (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.imstudent.no/kultur/musikk/rammstein-pa-nynorsk-rammsund-in-tromso/ | Look them up on Youtube and find some of their concerts. They have alot of articles in Norwegian too,if you search their name and then translate some of the articles, even just with Google Translate.Schwiiz (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've already read that one, a student newspaper article. I have also used every Google search tool (no need for a translate tool, Norwegian is my native tongue), and also made a search of the Norwegian national library. There's nothing substantial to back up the notability of this small, humorous, self-ironic tribute band. I just can't see this band as notable enough for Wikipedia. Coverage in student newspapers, having videos on Youtube and giving concerts isn't enough. Manxruler (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Norwegian pages should be deleted too if this one is.Schwiiz (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable tribute band. Not significant coverage. Manxruler (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Esotericism does not confer notablity. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dialog magazine[edit]

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

Article created and dePRODded by apparent COI editor. PROD reason still stands: "Non-notable magazine, only source is press release and book by magazine founder." Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article by User:Dialogeditor1 on a recently launched new magazine. No evidence of attained notability provided and, while the common name is awkward for searching, my searches (Highbeam, Google) on variants including location and founder name are not identifying anything better. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the original PROD-er I stand by the rationale. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While it started in 2016, it appears to have to few issues to have made any impact at all; I found no news sources about this periodical outside of press releases. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My unfruitful searches indicate that it is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since this has been created several times under multiple names, I will salt the article and its clones. MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas KM (the Asian)[edit]

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

Seems like an interesting young person, but any notability seems to hang on a speech he gave at his high school, which was covered in a local newspaper. Therefore, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator created similar other articles recently, which were speedied, including Nichola$ KM and Nichoals KM's Speech. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article does not assert notability. I cannot find any references except a few social media hits.Glendoremus (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, no non-primary reliable sources found which give significant coverage to the individual who is the subject of the article. Subject does not appear to meet notability as defined by WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Subject may one day, however unlikely, meet notability however as of right now it appears that this article was made WP:TOOSOON.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniil Bernadiner[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. See http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs_cr_00034542.htm Hergilei (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NSKATE & does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. No other apparent notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for figure skaters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NSKATE. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a WP:Soft delete. The article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson James Matthews[edit]

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

With just three years of experience, this person does not appear to meet notability under WP:ACTOR. —CaroleHenson (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a miserable WP:NACTOR fail. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Kubrak[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this TV script writer. Earlier PROD removed by article author. The two refs provide name checks and little else. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is the kind of stub that people write about themselves.— TAnthony^Talk 15:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly non-notable actor / scriptwriter. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. No additional supporting references available on searching. --Jack Frost (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have more often than not deleted stubs about scriptwriters, who after all are quite numerous and ordinary, unless they win a major award (Emmy., Oscar, Globe, etc.). He was nominated for a "WGA" award, along with eight others for the same show, and did not win. He has no acting credits that I could verify. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J 947 21:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Jocelyn Reid[edit]

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

The notability of this article's subject has not been justified with any credible references or citations. TopCipher (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs a cleanup, however articles like this point to notability as do the ten or so book references I saw in Google books. Many of the article refs are poor quality, however I think it should not be too hard to replace these with better refs. Web searches for "guy Joelyn Reid" turn up nothing-- you have to search for "Guy Reid" sculptor. 104.163.140.193 (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article in the New Statesman about a controversial nude sculpture of Joseph and Mary that he did for a church. 104.163.140.193 (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New Statesman article is pretty significant. If you look at his website under reviews there is a list of reviews and public commissions. Given the scope of his commissions, including museum works, and the coverage that he's received, this passes WP:GNG. freshacconci talk to me 01:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Sundae[edit]

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

Non-notable band with only passing mentions in local news outlets. Meatsgains (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment made by user Kimbobean in response to article being recommended for deletion on March 3rd, 2017

Comment by Creator Being relatively new to this process, what are the conditions for approval with a page? Is there a set number of news articles required or number of fans or number of shows? I thought Wikipedia was informational in nature, so if someone had searched for this band, it would come up in the search results. It did not appear to violate any of Wikipedia's terms and conditions. Am I missing something? Kimbobean (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in the article and nothing else found in a Google search to support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and MUSICIAN. Kimbobean Yes, to prevent the site from being flooded with every garage band ever, articles have to pass a set criteria laid down by Notability Guidelines. Casino Sundae fails all 12 points laid out in WP:BAND. The main page for notability (which contains General Notability Guidelines) explains the basics of the rules, and each subject has a more in-depth policy to prevent confusion and generalities. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please note the difference between non-notability problem and a hoax. Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bijay Ketan Swain[edit]

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

This article is a complete hoax as search has proved so, it is unfit, it fails every guideline ever given by Wikipedia and as so I say it should be speedy deleted This administrator @Sarahj2107: has for some reasons declined two speedy delete tags put up by different editors. Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read This : The creator of this article was speedy deleted earlier today after he created this page if the creator of a page can have his Userpage deleted in only two days + after joining Wikipedia why then should his false article remain?? Please let's work together and make Wikipedia a place for only clean information Celestina007 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - I declined the first speedy deletion because it was A7 and a credible claim of significance was made. I declined the second because the edit summary was "Recovering previous edit which was valid and correct action." which seemed to me like BlackJack was reverting to Celestina007's first speedy deletion tag and claiming that my decline was incorrect, a belief supported by their rather aggressive message on my talk page. Celestina007 you have conveniently left out the fact that the speedy deletion was declined a third time by another editor, hence this AfD. I have no comment on whether this article should be deleted or not, I don't care, but it is not the end of the world if we wait for 7 days, despite what the hysterical ALLCAPS on the talk page might lead someone to believe. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarahj2107: in as much as you were trying to follow due procedure, your actions were portraying a mild support for this article to remain on Wikipedia and obviously you know it should not, it fails basic guidelines. Celestina007 (talk) 20:54 , 11 3 March 2017 (UTC).

Comment Not only User:Sarahj2107; I also declined the G3. In my edit-summary I noted: Rotten article, but not a hoax: Rajanagar_(Odisha_Vidhan_Sabha_constituency)#2009_Election_Results, http://eci.nic.in/archive/se2000/pollupd/ac/states/s18/Acnstcand47.htm, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57027898/.) I can now expand on this: There is clearly a man called 'Bijay Ketan Swain'; he at some point has been a politician; and he clearly either lives in or has a connection with, the Indian state of Odisha. The sources are available to show this: not only is he mentioned in a two-year old article of our own, but this, this, this, this, and this all testify to the fact that at least some of the points the article (tries to!) make are true. I also note that WP:HOAX tells us that Hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates. It is usually not enough for just one or two editors to investigate a hoax so the original speedy was probably misplaced in the first place.

Lastly, regarding this particular AfD, I note also that WP:NPOL tells us that Politicians... who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office are generally notable. See WP:POLOUTCOMES. Carry on, — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Citations you provided are not from reliable sources, majority of which are about an organization and not an individual Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

No; you are confusing two different things. You claimed the article is a hoax. My sources, in clearly demonstrating the subject's existence, refute that. They are reliable sources for the fact that someone of a certain name exists within a certain organisation, which you have suggested, wrongly, is not the case. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a blantant hoax. It seems that the CSD fracas arose from a relative WP:NEWBIE using A7 instead of G3 but then we typically kicked into "process for the sake of process" instead of recognising that an error had occurred and a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE prevailed. Sigh! The main thing is to get this rubbish off the site and WP:BLOCK its "author". I have reported it all to ARV. Although I support Celestina's assertion that it should have been CSD, I don't condone the use of ALLCAPS and she should not be shouting, however frustrating some of these, er, processes may be (voice of experience). Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although this person could possibly exist, the argument for delete seems to outweigh the argument for keep. The user who created this article shared a username with the article's subject. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBIO. Ajf773 (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a hoax. I've cleaned up the article, added the sources to the article. One could perhaps consider WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:NPOL. Has been a president of the ruling party BJP in the state of Odisha for the Ganjam district. Lourdes 05:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would be like claiming the chairman of the Oakland County, Michigan Republican party who had run for and lost in a state senate race was notable. I would say delete there, and I say delete here. He was not the head of the party for the state, but of a sub-unit of the state, which is not a notable level to be party head at.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~hoax,~~ bunk refs. Indef creator for wasting time. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:L3X1, please read WP:HOAX (or at least this whole thread), and then make a !vote based on policy. Cheers, -- — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reread it. So your holding that because the dude exists its not a hoax, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 19:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without rehashing the whole thing, I think what we're in the process of establishing here, is that it's a totally non-notable subject, rather than a fake one :) -- — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and the GNG. Not a hoax, the subject exists - it's a Notability issue. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issue is not that the subject of the article doesn't exist (i.e. a hoax), but rather that the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO (i.e. non-notable). --Joshualouie711^talk 22:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:NPOLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of social activities at Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman[edit]

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

Non notable list. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:LINKFARM of external links to student societies at one institution, with no evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Completely non-encyclopedic list. Wikipedia is not a directory nor is it a linkfarm. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past practice. Unless a university and its clubs are well-known, they rarely pass WP:GNG and WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nom.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was some sentiment to redirect or merge, but the suggested target is almost certainly going to be deleted as well (the ongoing AfD looks pretty snowy). -- RoySmith (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rational numerals[edit]

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

This article is entirely based about two very recent articles by the same author, which appears to be also the author of the article (the userid is the title of the main article). There is thus a conflict of interest. One of these two references is self published. The other references (by other authors) are clearly not reliable (master thesis and video presentations), and cannot be considered as secondary sources. The lack of secondary source shows that the article is original research and does not satisfies WP criteria of notability. D.Lazard (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per WP:NOR. The only actual source for this is the Strazds 2016 paper, it's in a journal that (until the recent takedown) was listed in Beall's list of predatory open access journals (so even that one source is not reliable), and Google scholar can't even find the paper itself let alone any publications for it. This doesn't pass WP:GNG nor the more specific guidelines in WP:Notability (numbers). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Added after seeing other comments suggesting a redirect to rational number after the deletion: I have no objection to this. There aren't many hits for "rational numeral" in Google scholar, but what is there suggests that rational number is the correct redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I prodded this earlier. Fails WP:MADEUP. Blythwood (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a new source was found that can be considered reliable: Dzenītis, Andris (2006). "Zelta grāmatas rakstītājs" [The Writer of the Golden Book]. Mūzikas Saule (in Latvian) (2): 8–11. Retrieved March 4, 2017. Another source: a peer-reviewed OEIS contribution containing a description of the basic principles of the Rational Numerals: https://oeis.org/A248646. Suranadira (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; The new source is just an interview with the author. It is not secondary source. And in the video Tenisons does neither explained what is Rational numerals nor said anything about it. So it is not secondary source either. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; In my oppinion an interview with the author clearly conforms to the WP definition of the secondary source. Tenisons explains the Rational Numerals using an introduction film. He also discusses the film, and responds to the questions from the auditory on it. Suranadira (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; In different sources "Rational numerals" may be also called "the Golden Book", "Suranadira", in Bengali সুরনদীর, "the River of Air", "the River of Heaven", "the River of Music", "the River of Tones". Suranadira (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Another related article by the same author is also nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta numerals and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armands Strazds (3rd nomination).

Delete. As per nom. I don't see how anyone could interpret an interview with the author as a secondary source–straight from the horse's mouth is pretty much the meaning of primary source! --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and redirect: Not particularly notable, but it can redirect to Armands Strazds‎. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just like to remind everyone here that ATA include lack of secondary sources and WP scowls at Primary Sources, it doesn't forbid them.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Armands Strazds. No evidence of independent notability. I don't think anything should be merged, but, if the target is kept, perhaps something could be merged. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Made up by the author of the article. No legitimate merger target - the author doesn't meet the GNG so their article won't be here for long. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per non-notable neologism. I don't think redirect to Strazds would be useful as it seems more plausable as search term for rational numbers, and would be an odd place for such searchers to end up. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge parts to Armands Strazds‎, retarget to rational numbers, and hatnote to Strazds. Does not seem notable on its own, and seems more likely that people are using a plausible alternative for rational numbers than this obscure term. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since Armands Strazds‎ looks certain to be deleted now, merging won't happen. No objection to redirecting. 21:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. Unless it somehow survives, the hatnote won't be needed though. This should be retargeted (or deleted and retargeted) to rational numbers as a plausible search term instead of outright deletion though. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Nevé –selbert 15:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:2DABS, a disambiguation page should not be necessary. --Nevé –selbert 15:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to keep as a more elegant solution. Otherwise both the abbess and the ocean line would need to be listed in the hatnote, since "Queen Elizabeth II" also redirects to the monarch's article. older ≠ wiser 12:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only has 3 entries, but 3 see alsos which also link to partial matches and similar terms. 2DABS doesn't ban dabs of 3, and this is 3+3. Readers would lose out if this was deleted. Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look found 3 more valid entries, Neve-selbert. Do you want to continue with the nomination or withdraw it? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I admit this is no longer a WP:2DABS situation. I hereby withdraw this nomination. @Bkonrad and Boleyn: Thanks for expanding the dab.--Nevé –selbert 15:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Nightmare to Remember[edit]

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

Non notable as per WP:NSONGS, never released as a single. Most of the content is unsourced except for 2 dubious references in the lead section. Permafrost46 (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS after checking notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 23:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSONGS.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ultras of North America. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of the ultra-prominent summits of North America[edit]

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

Redundant to List of Ultras of North America unless the different sorting makes it distinct enough. The sorting of the latter is more consistent with the other lists of ultra-prominent mountains. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. If anything, I think the other page (List of Ultras of North America) should be merged with this one. The ability to view all peaks on the continent is important and is not possible on the other page. This page allows users to sort by range or by height and is thus more valuable. --NoGhost (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What should be done about the lists for other continents? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally, I think it would make more sense as a single table for each continent, with the region or range as a sortable column. This would be a significant undertaking though. --NoGhost (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Clearly a duplicate article. A spot check confirms Lophotrochozoa's statement that most other list of ultras articles contain several tables. (The relatively short List of Alpine peaks by prominence is an exception.) But I don't have a strong opinion on which direction the merge should go. Preserving both the single table and the separation by geographic area could be accomplished by adding a geographic area column (Greenland, Canadian arctic archipelago, etc.) to the complete table, but I don't really have an opinion on whether this should be done.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, including List of the most prominent summits of North America --- I agree with NoGhost and think that List of Ultras of North America should be merged here, into a single table with an extra column added, per Wikimedes. There is also List of the most prominent summits of North America, which should also be merged into this article. This latter list only has the top 200, while both of the others have the top 353. I don't see why we need three largely overlapping articles. —hike395 (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ghost DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dipendranath Bandyopadhyay[edit]

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

The subject has written and published a number of works, but does not appear to have been the subject of works by other reliable independent sources. A quick Google search only turned up WP:TRIVIAL mentions, the subject's own publications, and this Wikipedia article. There doesn't appear to be any article on the Bengali Wikipedia about him to use for reference, and the current English article lacks adequate sources to substantiate a notability claim. KDS4444 (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on Bengali Wikipedia that you can look at for reference - now linked on the english article too. https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/দীপেন্দ্রনাথ_বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়

Thanks! --Sucheta Ghoshal (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this fellow may be notable; some of his poetry appears/is reviewed in Indian Literature, (jstor source has restricted access) - gsearch - "Dipendranath Bandyopadhyay, is one of his deeply moving poems, in the collection. ... sent book, the poet offers us two series of poems. The first series ...... ranging from some important biographical contexts to the review of his writings, at", this article, Support poured in from abroad favoring Bangladesh Liberation War, names him as "the key organizer of the [Bangladesh Muktisangram Sahayak] samity.", Bandyopadhyay was posthumously awarded a Friends of Liberation War Honour - 'Awards Bestowed by Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh to Indian national' - hcidhaka.gov.in/pdf/War%20Honour.pdf. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After researching this writer he appears to meet notability guidelines. The points raised by Coolabahapple indicate notability and I was able to verify this information. I've added some of this info and the citations to the article, in particular the fact that Bandyopadhyay was posthumously awarded a Bangladesh Freedom Honour, the highest state award given by the government of Bangladesh for foreigners or non-nationals.^[1] That award alone indicates notability but his other work and writings does the same. This appears to be a case of an important author who is lacking in English citations, not in notability. --SouthernNights (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Awards Bestowed by Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh to Indian nationals," list created October 20, 2012, accessed March 6, 2017.

I withdraw my nomination KDS4444 (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 10:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jahnava Devi[edit]

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

Notability guidelines not met. Jahnava is only mentioned in one book from 1997 and not in any notable way. Snood1205 (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 00:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there are quite a few sources under books --David Tornheim (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP notability standards. Takanori Tomimatsu (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep-~~fails WP:GNG.~~Changing !vote per David Tornheim Winged Blades^Godric 14:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Edited at 14:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As David Tornheim said, there are a significant number of book results—more than the one noted by the nominator. J 947 05:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the discussion only started after the second relist, I'm making an exception and am relisting this discussion a third time so that the book sources mentioned by David Tornheim can be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As per David Tornheim.FITINDIA (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kendra Timmins[edit]

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

Was deprodded without rationale. Current sourcing is all press releases. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, as her latest role seems to be significant, but it is her only significant role. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passed WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable TV series (Wingin' It and Ride). St Anselm (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is passed when the actor or actress in question is shown to be the subject of reliable source coverage for the holding of "significant" roles. It is not passed just because it's asserted, or if the references are blogs and press releases from the shows' own production companies. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll need to look more at this one, but I'll be away from Wiki for a few days. Among Ride, Wingin' It and the film Lost After Dark, I think she might technically pass WP:NACTOR. What I'm not at all convinced is that she will pass WP:GNG (i.e. I'm guessing she's received almost no press coverage on her own), so I'll have to look at available sourcing when I can get back to Wiki... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An actor or actress does not get an automatic NACTOR pass just because "significant" roles are listed in the article — reliable source coverage about the performer has to be present to verify that the roles were actually as "significant" as claimed. But four of the five sources here are either blogs or press releases, not reliable source coverage — and while one of the references is a reliable source, if you're aiming for "passes NACTOR because her work exists" rather than "passes NACTOR because she won an Emmy or an Oscar or a Canadian Screen Award" then it takes more than just one reliable source to get there. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she can be sourced better than this, but what's present here right now is nowhere near enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unfortunately, it's not even close: I have found zero mentions of Timmins not only at the usual television media publications (e.g. Variety, THR, EW, LA Times, Deadline, and TVLine) but I also can't even find mentions of her in major Canadian media (e.g. The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Sun, or Vancouver Sun) – that's definitive: this is one of the clearest WP:GNG fails I've ever come across. I do disagree with Bearcat about one thing though – the "significance" of Timmins' roles can be established by things like crediting: in that regard, Timmins' roles (one clear lead role, a main credited role on a second TV series, and a lead or near-lead role in a film) are objectively "significant". The problem is that the TV series and films themselves appear to be generally on the low side of notability, which means the actors in said roles get no coverage on their own. In any case, Bearcat and I do come to the same conclusion: Timmins is not currently notable enough for a standalone article. So the result should be delete. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:NACTOR need to be changed then? What's the use of having a subject-specific guideline if WP:GNG is the only standard that is used? St Anselm (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No – it's simply a guideline, and can't possibly cover every possible eventuality. What it's basically saying is "Actors will generally be presumed notable if... [it meets one of these criteria]". But there will be cases where even having "multiple significant" roles will not get a subject to notability (e.g. because the shows or films involved were low profile). Similarly, there will be cases where a single "significant" role alone will get an actor to notability. Ultimately, the "controlling" guidelines are WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. But it's definitely possible to "technically" pass WP:NACTOR (etc.) while still failing WP:BASIC and/or WP:GNG (the latter of which are more important). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every topic on Wikipedia always has to clear GNG — SNGs exist to clarify the types of things that count as valid notability claims, but the claim itself still has to be supported by reliable source coverage before it actually makes the article keepable. The SNGs do not exempt a person from having to clear GNG on the sourceability — they just codify the types of statements that show notability if they're supported by GNG, but GNG does still have to be met, and passage of the SNG cannot just be claimed without sourcing it properly. And that's especially true if you're shooting for the weakest NACTOR criterion, "notable because she's had roles", rather than the strong ones like "notable because she's won an Oscar or an Emmy or a Canadian Screen Award".
The thing is that people can and do make inflated or even outright false claims that an article subject passes an SNG — wannabe-notable writers, for example, frequently conflate "was submitted to the award committee for consideration" with "nominated for the award" so that they can claim to pass AUTHOR on the basis of a literary award nomination they don't really have, articles have been created about actors which claimed that they "starred" in a film or TV series in which they actually had a minor unnamed walk-on part at best once the claim was researched, and people have created hoax articles about topics that didn't actually exist at all. So an article cannot get kept just because passage of an SNG has been claimed; it gets kept only if and when reliable source coverage, counting toward passage of GNG, properly verifies that the claim to passing the SNG is true. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Zurich Classic of New Orleans[edit]

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

Yearly edition of a non-major golf championships. Only a few non-majors, WGC events & Players Championship are, have been deemed notable enough for yearly articles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/Assessment#Specific individual tournament pages ("This type of page is restricted to the Major Championships (Men and Women), WGC events and a few of the most important other tournaments"). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988 Nabisco Championship where exactly the same issues were discussed. Nigej (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Nigej (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough for a standalone article. Tewapack (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 14:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sensis Agency[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. I am unable to find anything in-depth. I was initially going to strip out the promotional wording and lists of awards and clients but there wouldn't be much left. As it stands, there is nothing I can find to show notability. CNMall41 (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is not WP:WEBHOST for promotional materials that belong on the company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 14:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J 947 21:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reader Rabbit 3[edit]

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

Non-notable version of game. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that it can stand alone. Should be a redirect to the main game. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability has been established by the new reliable sources in the article. Deltasim (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking news: I have identified that Reader Rabbit 3 is actually the same game as Writer Rabbit after a bit of sleuthing. This AFD is void.--Coin945 (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coin945 - If you could list links to show it is the same game, that would help other editors make a decision. Please do not remove the AfD tag until this discussion is resolved. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have only seen this firmly established in one source. (The Project RIMES 2000 project Annotated Bibliography of Computer Software for Teaching Early Reading and Spelling identified Reader Rabbit 3 as: "Reader Rabbit 3 (formally known as Writer Rabbit)".^[1]^[2] I have examined images of both games and have identified almost identical minigames, simply wrapped in a different theme (party[2] vs. newspaper[3]). I also noted that this established that Math Rabbit and Writer Rabbit were both remade in 1993. TLC was known for re-releasing and updating old games so I found it very strange that "Writer Rabbit" was just left untouched. This makes much more sense. While that all counts as original research, I do think it is interesting that my own research backed up the assertion. This is enoguh to establish the connection at this early stage.--Coin945 (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the citations. Now editors can make up their own minds. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Deltasim. Enough external sources now. South Nashua (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the new sourcing in the article. Lepricavark (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - May arguably meet the minimum bar set by GNG per the PC Mag and Working Mother, but I'm not certain if a stand-alone article on this version of the well-sourced Writer Rabbit is as useful as if it were just a subsection of the Writer Rabbit article. My initial impression is that there may be a good argument for merging here. To clarify, is Reader Rabbit 3 nothing more than a different localization of Writer Rabbit? Or (as seems to be suggested above), is it a remake/enhanced remake? -Thibbs (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more like an enhanced remake. Essentially, RR3 has the same minigames as WR, but they are framed within a new setting. Rather than helping the protagonist prepare for a birthday, the protagonist is now working at a news organisatin where they are writing stories. I have one source that says "Reader Rabbit 3 (formally known as Writer Rabbit)", which justified my decision to merge some information, mostly as a safety net for this article which was initially PRODded and now at AFD.--Coin945 (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare these two images. What's your impression?
  - Writer Rabbit screenshot
  - RR3 screenshot

Comment - I'm not sure if this qualifies as a reliable source but there are three newspaper pages, which have the title "Writer Rabbit 3" written in the list of games for sale. I do not have direct access to the pages, but I found them via a Google Search:

While this may seem like a typing error, it seems too much a coincidence on three different pages, unless of course the OCR text is wrong since Reader Rabbit 3 is also included in the lists. I know that Reader Rabbit 3 was released seven years after the original Writer Rabbit and the newspapers date 1988. It's possible that "Writer Rabbit 3" was a working title for the remake. Could be worth looking into if anyone has full access to the newspaper pages. Deltasim (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They actually say "Writer Rabbit 3"" - many (if not all) of the listed games have 3" after the title.--Coin945 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless of course the number 3 stands for something else, such as 3 and half inch floppy disk. So those sources are out of the question. Deltasim (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prism (Katy Perry album). (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 15:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Lovers[edit]

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

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

Both these articles fails WP:NSONGS. These songs aren't notable. Suggest "redirect" to Prism. Shane Cyrus (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Prism album; neither of them got much (if any) attention from credible third-party sources outside of album reviews (failing WP:NSONGS), and all of the valuable information on them is already included on the album's article Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect fails WP:NSONGS. And Shane Cyrus, stop redirecting article at your own whim! You are not supposed to redirect when you are the one who has nominated for deletion. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IB: I apologise if I did something wrong. I am just coming off a hefty block and might be unaware about certain policy. Please be considerate and kind about it. AGF.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indire Entertainment[edit]

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

Searches turned up nothing on News, Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam, or JStor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable production company going about its business, nothing else. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:COMPANY. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Prendergast[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:GNG with only a couple of WP:ROUTINE sources. Yosemiter (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepth coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Whilst the subject appears to meet the criteria laid out in WP:HOCKEY at first glance (assistant general manager of an NHL team), there is a distinct lack of coverage in reliable, independent sources. Despite an exhaustive search for such references, I feel there is no alternative but to delete based on WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Model: The Musical[edit]

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

Just a minor student satirical work around a specific issue that has no ongoing notability. Boneymau (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melbourne Curriculum where this musical is already presented as part of the student response. There is some coverage at the time, but not after that I am able to find that would establish this as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. doesn't deserve a redirect either as it really adds little value to the topic of Melbourne curriculum. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with LibStar that there is not enough sourcing to support a redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Take your pick of reasons: those given below plus being written in such appalling English that patent nonsense almost applies. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live with one lung[edit]

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

This appears to be either a medical advice column or an advertisement for a fringe website promoting a cancer cure, I'm not sure which. However, it's probably not an encyclopedia article. DarjeelingTea (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone's essay. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay, unreferenced WP:OR. Neiltonks (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No input. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 08:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius University Institute of International Relations and Political Science[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Following on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faculty of Law, Vilnius University (deleted), let's clean up the two remaining departments at this university. Both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vilnius University Faculty of Communication are from early 1990s, so they are unikely to have any history or significance to speak of; this is just student-ad spam like entry. 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. Ping User:Jorgath who AfD this few years back. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 08:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No votes or input. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 10:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius University Faculty of Communication[edit]

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

Following on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faculty of Law, Vilnius University (deleted), let's clean up the two remaining departments at this university. Both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vilnius University Institute of International Relations and Political Science (2nd nomination) are from early 1990s, so they are unikely to have any history or significance to speak of; this is just student-ad spam like entry. 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 08:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Atkins (wrestler)[edit]

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

WWE Performance Center trainee who does not meet GNG. Article is WP:TOOSOON. Dannys-777 (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Dannys-777 (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A Google News search found 0 results. J 947 19:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting - appears to be in the wrong log sheet - appeared to be in the 24th Feb log sheet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 08:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hes in wwe and been on tv and will continue to be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.159.195 (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment being signed to a developmental contract and appearing as a jobber on NXT is not enough to satisfy GNG, until he receives a push and becomes a featured roster member the article is WP:TOOSOON unless he is notable outside of WWE, which he does not appear to be Dannys-777 (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minimal secondary sources. Does not meet WP:GNG at present. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 02:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StarsUnfolded[edit]

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

This website has questionable notability. TopCipher 07:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

StarsUnfolded is biography a website.This website provide biography information as of Actress, Actor,Cricketer, Businessman .etc .This is not available reliable source of website . Enaya Afzal.....📝 (Talk) 08:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7: No indication of passing WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Agree TopCipher (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB as well as the general notability guideline. Zero coverage in reliable sources, no indication of notability. --Joshualouie711^talk 16:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:NMEDIA is a supplement to the notability guideline, starsunfolded.com's work is frequently cited by other highly reliable sources.[4][5][6][7][8][9]. One could therefore consider the subject's worth in the context of NMEDIA, which suggests that a media publication may be considered notable if its work is frequently cited by other reliable sources. Lourdes 13:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahjad khan[edit]

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

Non notable BLP, fails WP:BASIC TheMagikCow (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possible CSD A7): Unsourced WP:BLP by new user User:Shahjad Wikipedia. My searches are finding no WP:RS coverage (including in the tailored Wikiproject India search), only the usual social media (with rather low view counts). No indication of attained notability, whether by WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possible CSD A7): This teenager's autobiography has no indication of passing WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.FITINDIA (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lyda Krewson[edit]

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

Non-notable St. Louis alderman. Fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete In its current state, I concur that this article doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. If an expert on the subject can confirm expansion is not possible, I will strengthen my opinion. Right now, I assume expansion is not possible, but I am not entirely sure. South Nashua (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. The article makes no other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. St. Louis is listed as a gamma-class global city, so she would certainly qualify for a Wikipedia article on "city councillor in a global city" grounds if something more substantive could be written and sourced about her than just "she exists and she's running for mayor" — but this, as written, is not the article that gets her over WP:NPOL #2. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #3. I appreciate that the nominator is new to AfD, but formatting issues are most certainly not a valid reason for deletion, and even as formatting issues go, these are pretty minor. I strongly recommend that the user better familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Deletion policy and continue to contribute to AfDs in order to gain experience in the area. TimothyJosephWood 19:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to emotion[edit]

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

Delete. This page should be deleted because of the reasons given in the template message on the page.There are "WP:MOS issues throughout, overquoting, style of writing, wikilinking, curly quotes, citation cleanup ... and more." No major fixes have been done recently, this template message has been on here for two years, and this article should be deleted under the terms of WP:MOS. TheGoldenParadox (talk) 04:05, 3 March 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 March 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We should perhaps request other editors for help in getting the article in lines with MOS. In my opinion, the faults within the article aren't egregious enough for this to be nominated for deletion. Anyway, I don't believe non-adherence to MOS could be a proper deletion reason in Afds. Lourdes 04:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – is this a joke? Since when has using curly quotes been a reason for deletion? Please read WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Laurdecl ^talk 06:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallspot[edit]

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

Company fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. There are a few references, but none of them add up to notability. The Register Guard is in-depth but the only other in-depth I found was from Portland Business Journal and it reads like a press release. Everything else is minor, local, interview, or from an unreliable source. CNMall41 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Universal[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotional tone as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as G11 actually applied because it's not only clear campaigning but a second mirrored attempt at it. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 04:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Leeds[edit]

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

Obit for non-notable individual. Fails to meet WP:AUTHOR - no indication of extent of contribution on indicated works. Not sure the TV series in question would be significant body of works. I could be wrong. reddogsix (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has references that clearly show notability.--Racklever (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: credited creator of multiple long running TV series including Small Wonder, The Facts of Life, and Silver Spoons along with producing and/or writing about a zillion TV series episodes over a long career. [10] Passes WP:AUTHOR. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. Keep per Arxiloxos. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (comment added subsequently to represent the actual close. Lourdes 06:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)) The result was Procedural Close. G11-ed by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 12:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chaitanya Chinchlikar[edit]

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

No reliable independent sources, unable to establish notability, appears to be vanity biography WWGB (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have been listed as a Notable Alumni by my College - Sydenham College of Commerce & Economics. Have several articles quoting me for subjects related to Education, Film, Media & Animation education. Vice President of India's premier Film & Media institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chait123 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of interviews. Even quoted in publications like Knowledge@Wharton. No coverage on the subject though. Lourdes 04:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Vanity page of non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the coverage of a journalist has to come from their personal wordpress blog they are generally non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually he seems more a consultant, PR person and part-time teacher. Nothing in this suggests notability. One rule for Wikipedia, if you have to be the one to create an article on yourself and to try to oppose its deletion, you are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11, User:Chait123 who created the article is almost certainly the subject in the BLP article.Ajf773 (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus that additions by Fiachra10003 establish notability. (non-admin closure) J 947 21:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Apparel Industries, Inc.[edit]

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

PROD contested by TonyTheTiger. My PROD reasoning was as follows: "lots of mentions in Wall Street Journal archives, but almost all are routine reports of earnings, losses, or personnel changes. no in-depth profiles or features. nothing to indicate they were a central leader in the field. checked for book mentions & got one trivial mention in a book about the history of the bra. again no in-depth coverage." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a number of citations from the New York Times and Chicago Tribune meeting WP:SECONDARY. Based on these, there's almost certainly more to add from the regional business press of the late 1920s and early 1930s once anyone cares to research these. This article needs fleshing out as a tale of the managerial capitalism of the late 1920s and early 1930s, not deleting. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, article reflects this thanks to Fiachra10003. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Nice historical piece. I'll see if I can come up with an illustration, that will make life happier for all and won't take too many minutes out of my day. Carrite (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, my newspapers.com subscription just expired, so never mind... Carrite (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Kallis[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:NFOOTY because he does not play in a fully professional league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I placed the original PROD. No evidence of notability either through GNG or NFOOTY. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not play in a fully professional league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable football player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

François Fournier (Rugby union)[edit]

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

Also nominating:

Does not meet WP:NRU criteria for notability of rugby players, nominating after PROD template was removed. No evidence of significant coverage outside organization profiles and match reports. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree with this request for deletion. Our players have accomplished a lot in order to be on our national team and it is unfortunate that because we are a small country our players do not have the best sources. Some of players have played and competed at high levels across the globe and take time and their own money to fly and compete for their country of heritage. --Lebanonrugbymedia (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mistake is to treat a Wikipedia page as a prize for hard work or something that one's entitled to, nor is it something for less famous people to get publicity. Wikipedia has clear and specific guidelines on what constitutes notability and I don't see how either player meets the guidelines. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (both): Fails WP:NRU and doesn't otherwise pass the GNG. Mattlore (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both non-notable rugby players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (both) - No evidence of notability per WP:NRU. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bioinformatics solutions inc[edit]

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

Non-notable small company advert Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I A7ed it and it was declined because two of the products were blue-linked (PEAKS and RAPTOR (software), which I did not see at the time. Both of the product pages appear to be spam creations as well, with one of them having either sock or meatpuppetry involved to save it from G11 back in 2008 [11]. As for this article, there is no in-depth third-party reliable sourcing out there. When I checked before the A7 tag, all that could be found were blogs and press releases. Everything else was using bioinformatics in a generic sense about another company's products. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This series of articles may have been created by single-purpose corporate accounts. Bioinformatics solutions inc by Bm-posting, PEAKS by FTMS ("for tandem mass spectrometry"?), RAPTOR (software) by Bsiraptor. I'm an inclusionist, but this does quack like a PR campaign. Certes (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I haven't nominated the software yet because I'm still trying to determine if they have any notability, but it does appear to be a COI/paid-editing situation on them as part of a PR campaign. If anyone who is more familiar with the subject matter could take a look at the software to see if it is notable independent of the publisher it would be great. If not, I'll probably AfD them at some point today or tomorrow. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are all about the types of research the company does, not about the company itself. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ningen (cryptid)[edit]

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

The entire article is copied from http://cryptidz.wikia.com/wiki/Ningen, and is otherwise unsourced. No reliable sources for this mythical creature. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it is entirely copied, why is it not marked as a copyvio? If it is entirely a copyvio as asserted, then I think the copyvio police could simply delete the article, and I do not see why it is opened at AFD. --do ncr am 00:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically an article can be nominated for speedy deletion by wp:G12 if it is completely a copyright violation. This should not be at AFD. Or is it not actually a copyright violation? --do ncr am 00:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content is released under a compatible license, and was mentioned as a source from the creation of the article. I added the attribution as the intent seemed clear. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS exist. Only sources I can find [12][13] are copy-pastes of each other, and neither the books nor the publisher (Text101/Cram101) comes anywhere near WP:SCHOLARSHIP. FourViolas (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources.Glendoremus (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete smells like a hoax to me. I seriously doubt Japanese government researchers would use the word "human" to describe what is reported in this article. If I put on my "assume good faith" hat, I'll say that somebody misheard the word ningyo, which is the Japanese word for mermaid. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Awards Bestowed by Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh to Indian nationals," list created October 20, 2012, accessed March 6, 2017.

[2] ttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED463618

[3] ttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERIC-ED463618/pdf/ERIC-ED463618.pdf

[1]

[1]

[2]