Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 March	8 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jambon-beurre[edit]

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

Being a delicious and popular sandwich does not make a dish notable. Article needs some kind of sourcing to substantiate a notability claim. KDS4444 (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article was created because of a recent spate of coverage like this, "Jambon-beurre is still France’s favourite sandwich." But then last year, Time Out felt compelled to rate the "The ten best jambon-beurre in Paris". The year before that? ""Jambon-Beurre", the king of sandwiches in France!". Being France's favourite sandwich would make it a notable food, and we have more than enough reliable sources to establish that and meet GNG. The article seems to be a valid member of Category:French sandwiches. "Article needs some kind of sourcing" is not the issue here: nominator needs to do his WP:BEFORE work and check for reliable sources -- that imo is the issue. It doesn't seem to me that that was done, based on the deletion rationale. . Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination KDS4444 (talk) 04:57, 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) 00:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colemine Records[edit]

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

All of the references given in this article lack independence from the subject. A quick Internet search only turned up hits like YouTube videos and social networking site (Facebook, twitter, etc.). I did not find non-trivial evidence of notability in reliable, independent, verifiable, secondary sources. KDS4444 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Sourced to primary sources and promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable garage "label" "producing" no one anyone ever heard of beyond their mothers. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:20, 14 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) 00:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Detective Brad Lancaster[edit]

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

Lancaster is notable for a single event (the Adrian Jones murder case). One might create an article about the case, if it led to any long term changes in policy about homeschooling, etc., but Lancaster's role in the case appears to be little more than a footnote. The articles listed as citations all cover the Jones murder, but none mention Lancaster. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Even the news articles don't make the claim. 73.202.53.43 (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - While I am still working on the article. There are several items that make this a notable case. Brad Lancaster was the first officer Killed in Kansas City since the 1980's, there are also cultural references by the Kansas City Royals, Sporting KC Soccer. This was a significant moment in the Kansas City metro in the spring of 2016.Joshsantiagokc —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
delete the question is not "is he a hero" because I believe he is. The question is "should this entry be included in this encyclopedia" and at least as it is written now I do not see enough notability for inclusion. The sources cited are local, one-event in nature. I would not be opposed to letting the enthusiastic editor userfy the article and try again after the article is complete. If more information is located and added to the article of course I will be happy to reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Perhaps Joshsantiagokc could let us know what Wikipedia notability standards the subject meets. I don't see any myself. Notability ≠ "I think he's important." Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lancaster is only notable for Adrian Jones murder case. This might well deserve an article, but there is no reason for an indepdent one on Lancaster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable person.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:22, 14 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) 00:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Peart[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. No major roles, no significant news coverage. Rogermx (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NACTOR after checking notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guidelines for actors and there are not enough sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:23, 14 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) 00:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji Viswanathan[edit]

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

Balaji Vishwanathan is a popular writer on Quora, but apart from that he is not notable enough to meet WP:BLP. Almost all the references in the current article are user-generated content, and therefore are unreliable, and I cannot find reputable, neutral sources to use to write a BLP of the subject. Therefore, I propose this article for deletion. — Stringy Acid (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is active speaker in India with covering almost all IITs and BITS, he is regularly invited to tech events and i think this wikipedia is best way for people to know who their speaker is. he has been covered by indian media multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.246.126 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Speaking at IITs and BITS is not notable -- professors at these institutes do that every day, and that alone doesn't make them notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. I could only find this article on a relatively unknown online-only news website that focuses on Balaji Vishwanathan. There are some other sources (e.g., this Scroll.in article) that briefly mention him. However, none of this is equivalent to "multiple" coverage by the Indian media. — Stringy Acid (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply [1] [2] [3] [4] Mitra is built completely in his supervision. I know being popular in social media isn't sufficient, but he is popular and notable within Indian college youth, and it because of his active participation in events and debates, i think this article is really helpful for people to know about him, moreover people are even searching for his net worth on google, which means a lot of people want to know more about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.246.120 (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Article 1 only briefly mentions Vishwanathan and his startup (among various other startups). Articles 2 and 3, which cover the same "StartAP fest" does not mention Vishwanathan anywhere. Article 4 also doesn't mention Vishwanathan, but briefly mentions a robot that his company invented (among many other robots). Again, very brief coverage such as this is not sufficient to pass WP:BLP (also see WP:TOSOON). About the argument that people would like to know about Vishwanathan -- people like to know about all kinds of things (e.g., how to make methamphetamine), but that doesn't mean that all such topics deserve an article on Wikipedia. Other claims (e.g., his popularity with the youth), require reliable independent sources. — Stringy Acid (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amazon.com produce listings and LinkedIn pages are not the stuff to pass GNG with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Variation 25.2 (talk) 08:57, 13 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. Rationale for deletion focused on lack of sources and reliance on primary and unreliable sources. Users in favor keeping the article presented sources including The Times, The Guardian and The Sunday Times which are independent RS giving the gallery significant coverage. This allows the subject to pass GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 08:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albemarle Gallery[edit]

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

I cannot see any reason why this recently established gallery is in any way notable, a feeling that is reinforced by the fact that the article relies upon the gallery's own website. Kasmins or White Cube it aint. TheLongTone (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep "Operating since 1986" is not "recently established"! It's older than White Cube, if not quite as starry. Wider refs would be good. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is not when it was established, but the fact it does not have any reviews or information about it activity. Article is overlinked, but most of them lead to the gallery website itself. Almost all the information I've found about it is related to the artists, exhibited in it and while many of them are notable, the notability is not inherited. For art gallery I expect to see some in-depth independent reviews or/and articles and not dozens of passing mentions, like "this artist also exhibited in Albemarle Gallery". Unfortunately I didn't find it. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthistorian1977—you say "For art gallery I expect to see some in-depth independent reviews or/and articles and not dozens of passing mentions, like 'this artist also exhibited in Albemarle Gallery'." It is unlikely that art galleries will be subject to "in-depth independent reviews or/and articles" separate from the exhibitions they hold and the artists in those exhibitions. This is not a reason for us to not have articles on art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes and no. It's true that gallery by itself is just a walls and roof, but as an institution, every gallery is notable as an institution and not a premise, where works of art are shown. For example, if I take a hall and exhibit works of Damien Hirst there, it does not make the hall a notable place. But if I take a hall, add a curator, who will generate a buzz, leading to articles, explaining in-depth why this specific exhibition is notable in conjunction with works of Hirst, this adds to the claim of notability. Take for example, every gallery from this list Category:Contemporary art galleries in the United Kingdom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are shitty galleries—no doubt. This is not such a shitty gallery. They have mounted a considerable number of shows of what appear to be original work by what appear to be relatively unknown artists. I think the number of unknown artists whose work is shown is more indicative of the quality of the gallery and therefore the rationale for our hosting an article than the number of highly-known artists. A not unimportant function of some galleries is finding talent, not providing a roof and walls for already established artists. Furthermore notable art critics give talks at this gallery. That serves an educational purpose not unlike that of museums. Here we have Brian Sewell talking at Albemarle Gallery and here we have Edward Lucie-Smith talking at Albemarle Gallery. The stature of such critics leads me to understand that the gallery is of some substance. Consequently we should want to have an article on such an art gallery. Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could be notable but its reliance on primary sources and its promotional tone make it wholly unencyclopedic. DrStrauss talk 13:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nine/24 non-primary sources Nine (quite a number) out of 24 citations are not self-sourcesNeuralia (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after removing Weebly, Saatchi Art and Other non- WP:RS sources, I see zero good sources. It's all fluffy promotion. Nothing of note in Google books/Google news. To be fair, this is to be expected. There are very few notable small galleries in the world. Under 50? The gallery itself is not what usually creates notability: it's the artists inside that are notable. As I say below, that notability is not inherited by the gallery, at least in WP world. 104.163.140.193 (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven notable artists exhibited in the gallery Wikipedia biographies of eleven notable artists acknowledge exhibitions at this gallery Neuralia (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited.104.163.140.193 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misapplication of WP:NOTINHERITED. Galleries host shows of the works of artists. These components are barely extricable from one another under commonplace circumstances. Bus stop (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An art gallery is an institution. This is not a "recently established gallery". That is a lengthy time ("operating since 1986") for a gallery to continuously be showing works of contemporary art. Absence of critical recognition for the gallery itself is not necessarily a negative mark against the institution. Yes, we have a policy of WP:NOTINHERITED and it doesn't strongly apply here due to the almost inextricable relationship between artists and the art galleries in which their work is most commonly encountered by the public. I count at least 9 artists with articles on Wikipedia that have shown their artwork at this gallery. I think even the long list of artists that have shown at this gallery that do not have articles on Wikipedia constitute an argument for Keeping this article. I think institutions with as deep a root system as this warrant an article on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the same nine artists buy their canvas from Acme Canvas company, is it notable too? Per Policy the only way to establish notability is through published sources. The root system might be miles deep, but if nobody has written about it, then it does not get an article.104.163.152.90 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison is of "Acme Canvas company" to Albemarle Gallery. Why is that comparison apt? Bus stop (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

canvas companies and galleires are both used by notable artists, but are both usually non-notable.104.163.152.90 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have Brian Sewell talking at Albemarle Gallery and here we have Edward Lucie-Smith talking at Albemarle Gallery—and we are considering deleting Albemarle Gallery? In explanation for the reason this is nominated for deletion I read "Kasmins or White Cube it aint". So what? You don't nominate a gallery for deletion because it is not another gallery. Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two links you provide above unfortunately are of no value in this discussion as they are a)both talks at Abermarle Gallery, and b) published on Youtube. What is needed are sources in news and publishing that confirm its notability through in-depth discussion of the gallery. Those do not appear to exist. (Also, my router seems to have reset. I was 104.163.140.193 before reset) 104.163.152.90 (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for art galleries should be considered the same as the notability requirements for Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Bus stop (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for high schools is 100% unrelated to this discussion. I'm done arguing with you here, have a nice evening. 104.163.152.90 (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point me to the notability requirements for art galleries? Bus stop (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no independant guidelines. They fall under WP:GNG and WP:ORG. This one is a goof explanatory article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary Art/Notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up before. Art galleries are being subjected to unrealistic notability requirements and consequently being deleted. There is an almost symbiotic relationship between art galleries and works of art. Art has to be shown somewhere. Only so much art is public art, and artist's studios are not that often used as exhibition spaces. A large proportion of art is displayed in galleries. The gallery is serving its role if it is used by artists and the gallery-going public. Sources in support of articles on art galleries should be understood to be sources on the other components that use art galleries—the gallery-going public, the artworks themselves, and the artists. Sources are unlikely to focus on the galleries alone. Nevertheless the galleries are notable if utilized by the other components. Bus stop (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If you want to create notability criteria for art galleries, sure, go for it, and then gain a consensus that they're valid. But a symbiotic argument cuts no ice: notability still isn't inherited. Me, I think such an argument is like "Boohoo, there aren't any notability criteria for ice cream stands, so I can't write an article on my favorite corner malt shop" but that's just me. As far as the notability criteria already in place, the subject fails, however much of an "institution" it allegedly is. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NukeThePukes—the gallery system includes artists, artworks, and perhaps other components, such as art critics and art curators. An art gallery does not inherit notability from the artists in its shows because the notability of one is part and parcel of the other—as long as they are closely associated. Ditto for works of art closely associated with certain galleries. Please see our Campbell's Soup Cans article: "Irving Blum was the first dealer to show Warhol's soup can paintings ... Blum was shocked that Warhol had no gallery arrangement and offered him a July show at the Ferus Gallery in Los Angeles." These components are inseparable. There is no inheritance. The most common arrangement by which the public comes to know about new developments in the art world is by the system that brings together artworks, art galleries, and artists. It is misguided to argue that our policy of WP:NOTINHERITED prevents us from establishing notability for art galleries from closely associated artists, artworks, etc. Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't stand up, I'm afraid. Some galleries are important because they are instrumental in advancing the careers of important artists. Others are just shops.TheLongTone (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Shops" selling what? Stockings? Socks? Rocks? Even the most unremarkable art is subject to the absence of a definition of what art is. Since 1986 this art gallery has been purveying artworks fresh out of living artists' studios. All art galleries are merely "shops". But they exercise the discernment particular to the weird world of art. You are making an artificial distinction between those galleries that are "instrumental in advancing the careers of important artists" and those that are merely shops selling the usual fare of stockings, socks, and rocks. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, but the abundance on non-self-reported refs found in Google News prove notability. Deletion is a disservice to readers who want to learn about this gallery. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all of the Google News refs mentioned above are WP:ROUTINE mentions where the Abermarle is mentioned as the physical location of the show, and nothing more. Contrary to the assertion, the Google news mentions tell you absolutely nothing about the gallery on its own-- they just tell you what is showing there. (I'm fomerly 104.163.152.90).96.127.243.41 (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct—the Google News mentions tell you nothing about the ventilation systems in the gallery, nothing about the gallery's lavatories, nothing about how frequently the gallery repaints the walls in its exhibition spaces. You say that the Google News hits only "tell you what is showing there." That is normal and expected under the circumstance. Galleries choose art and associated artists. The art that is chosen by a gallery tells you all that you need to know about that gallery. The artwork reflects upon the gallery. The gallery becomes known by the sorts of artwork it generally displays. The physical plant is unlikely to be of much interest to most readers. Sure, exceptions can be found. But we should not delete articles because of an absence of sources commenting on the gallery in isolation from artworks and artists closely associated with that gallery. The gallery becomes known for its discernment, its taste. Types of art are almost limitless. It goes without saying that galleries meet the requirements of spaces in which to display art. Journalists and critics write not about the gallery but rather about the artists and artworks associated with that gallery. Bus stop (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"we should not delete articles because of an absence of sources commenting on the gallery"... actually this is exactly why we should delete articles. Your badgering of every commenter is not helping your case. 96.127.243.41 (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This gallery appears to have an absence of sources commenting on the gallery. Do you think this article should be deleted? Despite the fact that it has been in operation since 1986? Despite the fact that artists with articles on Wikipedia have shown there? Despite the fact that art critics who have articles on Wikipedia have spoken there? What would you like to see in the way of a source about the gallery? What would the source talk about? My, what lovely lavatories the Albemarle Gallery has? Be realistic. A gallery is its artists. That is the way the "gallery system" works. It is the predominant system. There have been efforts to circumvent the system. There are artist-run galleries. And there are artists who attempt to sell from their studios. There is art in public spaces. One can also try to hawk art on the street. By the way, if you look at articles on art galleries you will see a dearth of sources on the gallery itself. Look at OK Harris Gallery. It was virtually an institution. Our article exists without a vast quantity of sources commenting on the gallery itself. Art galleries occupy a murky world between groundbreaking aesthetic advancement and hucksterism and it is hard to tell the dividing line. The same is true for artists. To me it is blazingly obvious that Wikipedia should take note of an institution that has played in that arena since 1986 with some indications of success. Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you are having trouble with your IP Address, why don't you just get a Username? My only regret is not choosing a dumber-sounding Username. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting WP:ROUTINE. If there were an entry dedicated to one exhibition in the gallery, you could claim WP:ROUTINE. WP:ROUTINE is used to exclude regular, non-noteworthy events from entry into Wikipedia. That's not the case here. This gallery is well-cited and well recognized. A full fledged feature article is not a requirement for entry into wikipedia an abundence of citations and notability is. Would you consider nominating the Treaty Room of the White House for deletion? Most of the coverage of the Treaty Room is about things that happened there, not the room itself, and judging from current citations there really isn't much about the room itself. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The gallery is not well-sited, and that is the problem. virtually all mentions are WP:ROUTINE, or in other words, "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." The Treaty room mention is bogus. I am sure I could find a thousand good references for the Treaty room that speak specifically about its history and what has happened there. You are also conflating the exhibitions at the Abermarle (which may have been notable and written about) and the gallery itself. Nothing significant has been published about the Abermarle gallery itself. Despite numerous protests that is should be notable because X, Y and Z, we cannot find decent references (the only actualy criteria for notability-- sources) to support the notability of the Abermarle Gallery. This has become a silly discussion. The references simply do not exist to support notability no matter how much the keep votes protest. You cannot argue this place into notability-- you simply need to provide references. Good night. 96.127.243.41 (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I had no trouble at all finding significant mentions of the history of OK Harris Gallery, and was able to add six Google Books references in fifteen minutes. Because, simply, it is notable. Search for similar WP:RS for the Albermarle, on its history, who ran it etc, and there is nothing.96.127.243.41 (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

96.127.243.41—do you feel that this article should be deleted? Or, are you just playing devil's advocate? Have you done a YouTube search for "Albemarle Gallery"? Please try doing that. Video after video confirms the notability of the gallery. Seriousness of purpose matters. There is no reason to compare this article to the article on Treaty Room. The comparison serves to support the argument that it is not the physical plant that matters. But other than that, the argument falls flat. Instead we should be looking at what we know about the subject of this article. The YouTube videos show at least 2 prominent art critics on 2 occasions giving talks at the gallery. Why does this matter? Connoisseurship is the intellectual underpinning of art. This is important to contemporary art, as well as to art in general. The gallery is being taken notice of, by prominent critics, because the activities that occur there are serious. Aside from the critics, the setting is deadly serious. "Serious" doesn't mean somber. This is a "real" contemporary art gallery. One of the reasons given for deletion is that this gallery is no White Cube. This only shows that someone drank the Kool-Aid. In presenting contemporary art one is always confronted with the question What is art? This is as true of "Albemarle Gallery" as it is of "White Cube". A glance at the YouTube videos shows you right away that this is a fully functioning contemporary art gallery. I never heard of this gallery until a few days ago when I saw this article up for deletion. I'm actually just trying to help you to see what you are doing. You are single-mindedly and wrongheadedly focussed on WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTINHERITED. There are numerous factors that should guide us on whether or not to host an article on an art gallery. Please see this and this and their associated Wikipedia articles here and here. Bus stop (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

96.127.243.41—you say above "You are also conflating the exhibitions at the Abermarle (which may have been notable and written about) and the gallery itself." The gallery is the exhibitions. The gallery hardly exists separately from the exhibitions and the artworks and the artists. The three factors come together to create a contemporary art gallery. Bus stop (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong. As I said above, the Albermarle is simply a shop. That its products may be notable does not confer notabity. By way of analogy Super Mashriq, my local corner shop, sells Worcester Sauce. And I don't really think that the exhibitions are truly notable in the way that, for instance, the Armory Show was a notable exhibition. They are simply part of the careers of notable artists.TheLongTone (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy is imperfect because unlike in the instance of art, we know what good Worcester sauce is, what mediocre Worcester sauce is, and what bad Worcester sauce is. The Armory Show was not an art gallery and the Armory Show took place 100 years ago. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. We are talking about notabity rather than merit. And I don't think you are familiar with Worcester Sauce; there is no such thing as bad Worcester sauce, although there may be inferior imitators, which are not Worcester sauce. As for knowing what is good, I believe that there are people who prefer Branstons baked beans to Heinz's, just as there are people who think Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst can be considered seriously as artists. When the Armory show took place is irrelevant. It's simplay an example of notable show.TheLongTone (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone—you initiated this WP:RfD. Yet you take this opportunity to say "As for knowing what is good, I believe that there are people who prefer Branstons baked beans to Heinz's, just as there are people who think Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst can be considered seriously as artists." After initiating this WP:RfD you are now weighing in with an opinion on Koons and Hirst. Your expressed opinion on Koons and Hirst is out of place. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the Armory Show took place may be irrelevant but contemporary examples might be more comparable, and the Armory Show was not an art gallery. ("The Armory Show typically refers to the International Exhibition of Modern Art that was organized by the Association of American Painters and Sculptors in 1913, the first large exhibition of modern art in America.") Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you add tincture of formaldehyde to Worcester sauce wouldn't it be bad or at least mediocre? Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point but irrelevant. I'd argue that it would no longer be strictly Worcester sauce- incidentally it would be toxic rather than mediocre. TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are ludicrously focussed on "Worcester sauce". Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bus stop, badgering everyone who comes to this AfD with an opinion isn't helpful. Do you think you could just chill out and let this proceed? It's not meant to be a battleground.96.127.243.41 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

96.127.243.41—could you stop complaining? I have asked you questions. I asked you what part the presence of 2 prominent art critics speaking at the gallery plays in your thinking. But you have not responded. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the replies, you will see that Youtube source are not reliable refs. That's basic. I also note that you have been blocked for edit warring and other conduct issues at least a half a dozen times.96.127.243.41 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 96.127.243.41—perhaps I was not clear. I have tried a couple of times to elicit a response from you which would be separate from policy concerns. What I am trying to hear from you is how you reconcile apparent notability with policy-compliant notability. I don't think we are totally bound by policy. I thought our aim was to improve the encyclopedia, and if policy stood in our way, we should ignore it. I've asked you a couple of times how you reconcile the presence of notable art critics speaking at the gallery with deleting the article on the gallery. Aren't art critics an underpinning of the art world, or at least an important component of it? Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, this is a situation I have encountered again and again in Wikipedia. With art galleries it is extremely difficult to establish notability. Most reliable sources are about the individual exhibitions, or invited speakers, or curators, not the space itself. Unless there are sources that are about the space itself, it's really difficult to pass WP:GNG. I've tried repeatedly to save articles about art spaces and in most cases failed. Sure, developing notability criteria for art spaces would be wonderful, if someone could argue persuasively that a long-standing institution, with notable exhibitions can bypass WP:NOTINHERITED because of some sort of accumulated notability (if notable artists and notable curators and notable exhibitions are exhibiting and curating and taking place within a space, consistently), then we can revisit this. As it stands, we do not have the requirement flexibility to establish this as notable at this time. If more sources turn up about the space itself that satisfy WP:GNG I would immediately change my !vote. freshacconci talk to me 19:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An art gallery consists of several "stakeholders". There are the owners, the curators, and there are even the loosely affiliated group of artists that gravitate to certain galleries. While the artists' artworks certainly cannot be considered "stakeholders", they certainly are part of the equation. A gallery that shows hyperrealism becomes associated with that aesthetic. When evaluating a gallery for notability we most definitely have to loosen up on the WP:INHERITED requirement because not doing so results in an absurdity. Bus stop (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, Bus stop but we haven't loosened them and this AFD is probably not the place to do it. As I said, I'd be happy to change my !vote but I don't see it at the moment. freshacconci talk to me 20:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERITED is not even applicable. What is an art gallery? What would an art gallery be without art, without artists, without exhibitions? It is the activity that makes it an art gallery. It may consist of nothing beyond shelter from rain and protection from theft. An art gallery consists of the organizational abilities of such people as owners and curators. An art gallery is also the existence of a ready supply of artists and artworks. Quite importantly an art gallery consists of the endorsements of tastemakers such as journalists and art critics. When they write about the exhibitions and the individual artworks, they provide us with evidence of notability. Bus stop (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freshacconci—I've seen this before also. It's ridiculous. One would think it would have been corrected by now. I've never been to this gallery, but it is obviously a substantial art gallery. There is a snobbishness at work in comparing it to a White Cube which obviously has received greater press coverage. It doesn't matter if it is a "shop", as one editor has pointed out. All art galleries are "shops". One can't be 100% cynical. The artwork derives from a sense of conviction on the part of an artist. Whether it is bullshit or not is not the primary question. The activity is very real. A substantial art gallery warrants an article on Wikipedia. A tremendous amount of activity surrounds an art gallery such as this. That activity is noteworthy. Bus stop (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment to Freshacconci. I don't think precedence has to dictate your vote on this. Just because other galleries were mistakenly deleted doesn't mean this one has to be too. This could be an opportunity to start new precedent that more generously interpret notability to allow valuable entries like this one.Bangabandhu (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Patently fails GNG. Note to Bus stop, please don't bother bludgeoning me with your tired BUTILIKEIT arguments; they don't change policy.--79.71.0.201 (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 79.71.0.201—thanks for pinging me. Can you please tell me where you feel I have presented an argument that could be construed as a BUTILIKEIT argument? Do you feel that I "like" the art gallery? That would not be the case. Art galleries should be part of Wikipedia's content. GNG fails to recognize that oftentimes there is plenty of good quality sourcing pertaining to art galleries but that sourcing is often about the exhibitions that take place in art galleries. Exhibitions often change on as frequent as a monthly basis. Therefore arts columnists write a new blurb on each exhibition after reviewing it. Editors ought to be able to grasp the particulars applicable to a type of article—in this case our articles on contemporary art galleries. There is often nothing remarkable about the physical space that constitutes such an art gallery. But what is noteworthy are the sorts of artists showcased there—and that is what the journalists and art critics write about. Were the art exhibitions ignored by arts columnists and art critics then it would be perfectly justifiable to not have articles on such galleries. But that is not the case concerning this gallery. Considerable notice is taken on an ongoing basis over a long period of time not only by journalists but also art critics, of the exhibitions taking place at this art gallery. I have zero connection to this art gallery and I don't endorse all art galleries for articles on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source: "Located in Mayfair, London the Albemarle Gallery has a reputation for introducing exciting contemporary painting and sculpture from international and UK based artists. Drawing from an impressive stable of established and emerging artists, the gallery is renowned for its stimulating figurative and hyper-realist exhibitions and its visually stunning sculpture installations. The gallery strives to represent artists whose unique work transcends the aesthetic and challenges the intellect. Many of the gallery’s artists are represented in public, corporate and private collections." The source is "http://www.londonartweekend.co.uk/". Bus stop (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though you will disagree, this source supports the notability of our gallery. It relates to an exhibition held at the gallery. In this source we read "Accompanying the exhibition is a newly published hardback book also entitled The Painted Word with 416 colour illustrations. The text written by the eminent Art Historian Edward Lucie-Smith, focuses on calligraphy, with reference to ancient and contemporary scripts, with a detailed explanation of the concept of the 99 Names of God." The text of the book accompanying the exhibition is written by Edward Lucie-Smith. He is an art critic. I will predict that you are going to argue about INHERITABILITY. But art galleries are generally not focussed on in an isolated way by sources. The center of focus in sources writing about art galleries tends to be about exhibitions. Bus stop (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, what do you mean when you say that the source"supports the notability of our gallery" ? When you write "our gallery", it leads me to believe you may have a COI... (formerly 96.127.243.41).198.58.158.1 (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

198.58.158.1—do you disagree with my contention that the two citations provided above show us that the subject (Albemarle Gallery) meets a reasonable reading of our WP:NOTABILITY requirements? In response to your second point, no I don't have a WP:COI. As I've stated I only know of this gallery from this "Articles for deletion" page. If I am arguing passionately, it is because I think it is stupid to delete articles on art galleries, especially contemporary art galleries, due to a quirk in the way sources address them. We can have a discussion about the crux of the matter, if you're interested. Sources normally report on the exhibition activity at such galleries. The galleries themselves recede into the background of much reporting in reliable sources on contemporary art galleries. Reliable sources tend to focus on the activities that take place on the premises rather than the gallery itself. The exciting thing are the monthly shows displaying the work of often thought-provoking artists. Can you tell me why this particular quality of contemporary art galleries should tend to disqualify them from attaining the notability that we require? The application of WP:INHERIT is patently stupid in this instance. Exhibitions at art galleries are their reason for existence. Indeed, to use our language from policy, contemporary art galleries do "inherit" notability from the exhibitions that take place on their premises. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that you do not have a COI.198.58.158.1 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find user Bus Stop's passion refreshing, in an encyclopedia project that is more often than not dour, cynical, and short-sighted in terms of what it covers and what it does not, as it covers some 20 year-old's mixtape in greater depth than the biography of a Nobel laureate. It would be airtight to have a profile of the gallery in a reliable source, but absent that, I do feel that a reliable source that discusses a prominent artist's works hosted at the gallery to be sufficient. TheValeyard (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Olivers, Steve (2009-11-14). "Mark Glazebrook - Boisterous figure in the art world who ran the Whitechapel Gallery for a time and promoted the modern at his Albemarle Gallery". The Times. Archived from the original on 2017-03-13. Retrieved 2017-03-13.
  The article notes:
  
  On his return to London in 1979 Glazebrook rejoined what was now Alecto Historical Editions, helping Studholme with the launch of its fullcolour edition of Joseph Banks's great Florilegium, the first in 200 years. He then began to deal privately, with a particular interest in modern British painting and drawing, which led him to open his Albemarle Gallery, halfway up Albemarle Street in Mayfair, in 1986. The gallery flourished for a while, in spite of chaotic business methods - one young assistant, on her first day in the gallery, remembered asking to be shown his in-tray, whereupon a drawer stuffed with brown envelopes was pulled open. "And the out-tray?" - that was the drawer below, similarly stuffed.
  Glazebrook had taken on a partner in the gallery, and affairs seemed to settle for a while, but with the onset of the recession, the subsequent break-up of the partnership and withdrawal of his bank's support, Glazebrook was left high and dry and all but bankrupt. The Albemarle closed in 1993, and the house in Bedford Park, which as a young man he had bought with his inheritance, and against which the business was secured, had to be sold.
2. Fielding, Nick; Brooks, Richard (2001-05-27). "Turner prize poll 'fixed' by gallery". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2017-03-13. Retrieved 2017-03-13.
  The article notes:
  
  A TOP gallery and art critic have been caught out after trying to fix a "popular" shortlist of artists for the Turner prize.
  The exclusive Albemarle gallery in Mayfair, London, and Brian Sewell, the colourful critic with the capital's Evening Standard newspaper, used clients' names taken from the gallery's database to promote their choice for the prestigious art prize.
  Few, if any, of the clients were consulted before their names were forwarded as supporters of Stuart Luke Gatherer, one of the gallery's own artists.
3. Golding, Paul (1990-06-27). "Bring the party to the artist - Galleries". The Times. Archived from the original on 2017-03-13. Retrieved 2017-03-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Perhaps the most prolific private view host is the Albemarle Gallery, which has shown and toasted well over 100 artists in the three and a half years since its inception. "But", admits Mark Glazebrook, ex-Colnaghi and one of the Albemarle's directors, "people who want to buy are definitely put off by private views. People who you know want a bit of time and space and really look at the pictures, you ask to come the previous day for lunch."
  Therein lies the difference between the guest and the client. But what about the marauding gate-crasher? Does he or she not pose a problem?
  "I think every gallery has a number of people", explains Glazebrook, "whose social lives seem to revolve around private views. I have certainly thrown some of them out before now people who start telephoning abroad, falling over, smashing glasses but this is exceptional. Anyway, I prefer to err on the side of being welcoming. Private views are a service to the public and I don't grudge it."
  This is not significant coverage, but it can be used to verify information in the article.
4. McLeish, Euan (1999-06-13). "Scottish artists show up the academy - Exhibition". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2017-03-13. Retrieved 2017-03-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Perhaps the venerable institution has sharpened up because of the competition. Just across the road in the Albemarle Gallery, the Royal Scottish Academy, the Scottish equivalent of the RA, is mounting its own summer exhibition in London for the first time.
  The Albemarle event, which was opened by Lord Irvine, the lord chancellor, on Thursday, is truly selective, comprising just 42 works, chosen by the artists themselves. This is the cream of established Scottish talent - as will be immediately apparent to anyone tempted away from the RA.
  This is not significant coverage, but it can be used to verify information in the article.
5. Beachey, James (2009-12-21). "Mark Glazebrook obituary". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2017-03-13. Retrieved 2017-03-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Returning to London four years later, he rejoined Alecto and continued to collaborate with commercial galleries on exhibitions exploring aspects of modern British art, before eventually opening his own premises, the Albemarle Gallery, off Piccadilly, in 1986.
  The Albemarle was a victim of the recession of the early 1990s – and, it has to be said, of Glazebrook's chaotic approach to business and an often turbulent relationship with his partner in the gallery, Rodney Capstick-Dale. With its closure in 1993 Glazebrook was forced to sell the family home to cover its debts.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Albemarle Gallery to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Allow the user Bus Stop (or other users) to copy the contents and fix the article if they would like, and petition to recreate/resurrect it at a later date. As it currently stands this article reads more like a phonebook listing than something from an encyclopedia. If this gallery has hosted notable events and shows then a history portion should be written that describes them, not just a list of names and don't even get me started on the publication list. If the user Bus Stop had written half as much in the article as in here, this article would likely be fine. It should also be mentioned that the article doesn't even have an active talk page. Endercase (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endercase—According to WP:TEARDOWN (an essay) "An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub and edited, and expanded, rather than simply deleted." Bus stop (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop It isn't about the fact that it is short, it is about the content. There is no real content to speak of in this article. The current TLDR would be "this is a Gallery that also sells books". It is very likely that you should focus your efforts on changing the article not the users' minds. Endercase (talk) 06:45, 13 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 Chris E. Vargas. Kurykh (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Transgender Hirstory and Art[edit]

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

Fails GNG and ORG. Did a quick check on google, the only clear external coverage I saw was a tangential blurb in Buzzfeed. The rest was PR-type stuff. Maybe I missed something, if I did, please add it and I will withdraw. I don't think the threshold can be reached, though. South Nashua (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when looking for sources, please note that the name of the museum uses the word "Hirstory", not "History". If you let google autocorrect that spelling, you'll find nothing. If you look for the correct name, you will. Not a case of WP:BEFORE, I hope. Mduvekot (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nope, here's the search with the correct spelling [5]. Mostly self-promotional stuff. South Nashua (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Merge into an article about about Chris E. Vargas, the artist behind MOTHA. It seems more appropriate both because Vargas has clearer notability through reviews [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] and screened in notable places (MIX NYC, SF Camerawork, and the Tate Modern); and because MOTHA isn't a traditional museum, but rather functions more as an artist project mining museums and exhibiting in other art spaces.Theredproject (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After looking for sources and finding some, possibly even enough to base an article on, I agree with Theredproject that a merge with Chris E. Vargas would be more appropriate. The museum is to some degree a curatorial project by Vargas and can be a subsection of an article on him. There is only little procedural problem; that article doesn't exist yet, so this AfD can't be closed until it does.Mduvekot (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a Draft:Chris E. Vargas place to start. Just boilerplate right now. Theredproject (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or if consensus) Merge There is enough coverage to pass GNG. The Stranger describes how the museum was created and there are plenty of references to the work the museum is doing, how the creator, Vargas, decided to put it together and so on. Together, these all show GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wrote what I think is a pretty solid article for Vargas. Just submitted via Draft: Draft:Chris_E._Vargas. Theredproject (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is now live: Chris E. Vargas. Can we merge the MOTHA article into the Vargas one? Mduvekot, Megalibrarygirl, South Nashua is there consensus around that?Theredproject (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge. I currently don't see MOTHA existing independently of Vargas. Mduvekot (talk) 13:27, 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) 00:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Anderson & Associates[edit]

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

Promotional article by COI SPA mostly supported by self-published refs & Amazon links. Cabayi (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication that company meets WP:CORP.-- Dewritech (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:CORP, WP:GNG, etc. No notability here. South Nashua (talk)
Delete. advertising DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:25, 14 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) 00:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bradley (actor)[edit]

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

This is a credits dump with no references. It doesn't not explain his most notable roles or what makes him Wikipedia notable. It is difficult to tell what makes him meet WP:ENT. Saying he was involved in some notable movies says nothing. He could be "additional voices" or way down in the credits list (i.e. not notable) for those productions. What does he have to do with the Academy Awards? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he's hardly listed on the Behind The Voice Actors website, no checkmark roles to confirm [20] BTVA usually shows a lot of credits for those involved in cartoons. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is also an Eric Bradley (musician) so some articles in news searches may refer to that person. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way to minor of roles to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 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) 00:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Hanna (volleyball)[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a college-level sportsperson, which is based entirely on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage in media shown at all. She has a valid potential claim of notability as the winner of an award at the Canadian Interuniversity Sport level, but WP:NCOLLATH does not exempt the claim from having to be reliably sourceable -- it explicitly states that "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage", and lists winning a national-level award as an example of the kinds of things the reliable sources have to support. But the only sources here are her own profile on her own team's website, her own staff profile on the website of her current employer and the CIS's own internal newsletter, with no evidence of independent media attention present or locatable anywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NCOLLATH and the GNG. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lack of secondary source coverage of her volleyball career, her sports journalism career is even less close to rising to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable volleyball player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:30, 14 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) 00:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Lollywood[edit]

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

The article's citations don't seem to use the term "New Lollywood" anywhere. Most of the author's edits seem centred around spreading the use of this term. Maybe I misunderstand, but it looks like this has been coined by the article creator? TheDragonFire (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see related group nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gballywood Movies -- where I've added one -- and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Henrycolesmith. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Author seems to be pushing a neologism that he invented. There is something called Lollywood but it's a Pakistani movie website (also non-notable).Glendoremus (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lollywood is the standard nickname for the Pakistani film industry (mainly Urdu), from its original location in Lahore. Absent WP:RS evidence that "New Lollywood" (in Liberia) has received some sort of recognition, IMO it fails WP:GNG. ("New Mollywood" (derived from Monrovia) wouldn't work either - Mollywood most often refers to the Malayalam film industry.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Article creator User:Tonytoesmith was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry about 30 minutes ago. Narky Blert (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Appears to have been made up by the article creator or someone they know personally. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:36, 14 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) 00:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EliteHeads[edit]

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

All sources are self-published and none is WP:RS. A search turned up nothing better. WP:PROMO; fails WP:NCORP. Narky Blert (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and would have qualified for speedyDel. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 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) 00:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer (2017 film)[edit]

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

The page itself says that filming will start only in 2018. Fails WP:NFILM and is WP:TOOSOON. Jupitus Smart 13:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too premature. Anything could happen between now and the start of filming, especially with this much time in between. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of deleting, userfy or move to a draft (prefer the second) as Lucifer (2018 film). Because, as per this source from its writer, filming will start in May 2018.--117.246.79.134 (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not feel there is anything to move to a draft as there is hardly any substance in the article. There were many reports that the project was shelved [21] & [22]. The producer later clarified that the movie has only been postponed as of now and shooting is expected to start in May 2018. May 2018 is still a long time from now, and I don't believe an article based on hear-say, merits anything other than a delete. Jupitus Smart 06:42, 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 keep. No credible copyright infringement claim has been presented, and there is no consensus to delete on other grounds. The nominator should take more time to familiarize themselves with WP:COPYRIGHT as well as Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. postdlf (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table of handgun and rifle cartridges[edit]

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

I am proposing this page be deleted for the reason that it is a copy of copyrighted materials. It is copied from books that are copyrighted that are not freely distributed and it may also be copied from website which are copyrighted. Items are copyrighted for a reason. The data on this page is generally available only through paid books, or from sales literature which is given away in expectation of making a sale. This page, in that regard, can be seen to be depriving publishers and companies who make these products of profits. Digitallymade (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This sounds like a content dispute. @Digitallymade: - this information is widely available in the public domain. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and with prejudice. This is not a rationale for deleting the article; it is a rationale for deleting Wikipedia. You cannot copyright facts; you can only copyright the original presentation of those facts. TimothyJosephWood 13:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I HAVE corrected some of the errors on that page, I PAID for the sources that were used to create that page. I DO NOT BELIEVE that the information there is public domain. If it is, then I want to see the PROOF that it is. If you can prove it's PD then I'll withdraw the suggestion. I oppose ALL material that is copied from books or copyrighted websites. I HAVE PERSONALLY SEEN this data is copyrighted, or else I would not say anything about it. Digitallymade (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I already said, this is clearly a dispute about the content. Raise your issue on the Talk page of the article, don't just nominate a 14-year-old article because you don't like what it says. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: This sort of data is not copyrightable. Copyrightable material has to be expressive and creative. This table is merely extent measurements of products - neither expressive nor creative. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though for a different reason than the nominator. I don't think this is a notable list. It is compiled from primary sources. See WP:LISTN. There's no indication that this list, as constructed, meets Wikipedia standards. Further, it is a list of "selected" cartridges, with no criteria given for the selection. See WP:LISTCRITERIA. For those reasons, it should be deleted. Felsic2 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, classic example of Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. style collection of uncopyrightable data. I am grateful for your work, Digitallymade, and sympathise with your monetary investment, but those authors are also aware of how this works and often copy data from each other. --pmj (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all Copyrighted material. This is the land of the lawsuit. Publishing data that is critical to safety, such as firearms cartridge data, EVEN if it's only a copy of a copyrighted page (by the way some of the copied material comes from pages that are specifically marked as copyrighted, accrues liability should someone, for example, insert an incorrect cartridge based on a misunderstanding of a chart such as this one. I was close to an incident in Resisterstown, MD some time ago when a man cut off his arm with a chain saw, due to incredible stupidity, and blamed the people who rented the saw to him. That's why, in the USA, you might by a $.02 item and get a safety manual that cost a $1.00 to reprint. One of my job titles decades ago was "Safety Officer" so I'm not happy when I see things that can allow law suits, even when the majority of people don't see any harm to it. .223 WSSM has largely disappeared. That may be because of the number of firearms that exploded due to someone inserting the wrong cartridge in it and firing it. Liability law, as opposed to criminal law, assumes you are liable from the first and there are many wealthy attorneys (like Dan Schneider who purchase the Washington Redskins for $2 billion) who benefit. I do not believe that taking risks is a reasonable action. Besides, if it is public domain as someone suggested and I do not believe, why have it here? Let the interested parties get it from an authoritative source, since this one never will be. Digitallymade (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about lawsuits, let me ask you this - do you have any actionable interest in any of the copyrighted material? If so, you haven't disclosed your Conflict of Interest - which is something you must do - see WP:COI Exemplo347 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted, but it should be more focused. What is the purpose of using manufacturers data? Why does one cartridge use manufacturer A's data and another one uses manufacturer B's data? Who determines what are the highest values for each load? I believe that the list should cite saami.org, the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute and should list the cartridge specifications - those numbers are standardized. Bullet weights and energy numbers are way to variable and often proprietary. (This is my first time contributing to a discussion. If I did it wrong, sorry, please let me know how to improve, thanks.)--Comfortable.chairs (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comfortable.chairs (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gballywood Movies[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable term; a search for sources resulted only in a few unreliable Facebook hits. This isn't eligible for A11 since it appears to have not been coined by the article creator, but at best "Gballywood" appears to be a neologism. This isn't even a plausible redirect to Cinema of Liberia considering how little-used the term appears to be. ~~Note that the nickname of Liberian cinema is apparently "Lollywood" and not "Gballywood".~~ Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: it appears that "Lollywood" in the sense of Liberian cinema is also possibly made-up by one person or a group of people, possibly connected to the sockpuppets mentioned below. I couldn't find a valid nickname for Liberian cinema at this point. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

adding nomination of: Gballywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMADEUP. I wonder if the person who created the Facebook page isn't the article creator. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to also be an issue with sock or meatpuppets, who have been busy coining neologisms for Liberian cinema. This Gbally thing seems to have been concocted with then realized that Lollywood belonged to a different country -- and he or they have tried to redirect it to Liberian cinema. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The matter is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Henrycolesmith -- for the second time, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also please see related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Lollywood. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At best, this is a non-notable neologism. At worst, it is simply WP:MADEUP. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:57, 14 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) 00:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Alzahrani[edit]

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

Non-notable PhD student, doesn't meet WP:NACADEMICS or WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROF. Graduate students are almost always not yet notable (because their papers haven't had enough impact yet and it is too difficult to disentangle their contributions from the contributions of their more notable coauthors) and I don't see any evidence that this one is exceptional. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:PROF. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:38, 14 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) 00:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ricochet (website)[edit]

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

Nearly exclusively self-citations Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 7 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) 14:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NWEB. Practically all sources are self-citations. AusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 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) 01:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Mills (the hon)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR: No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject also no evidence to support if the actor has played a major role in any of the film listed in the article. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page expresses accurate information collected through magazine interviews, common knowledge, and information made avaliable online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzinsider (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Bizzinsider (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I've reformatted this comment to remove the header, and to bold the "Keep". The header broke the AFD log and at least one bot. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or even speedy delete) – subject, now at the correctly disambiguated Charlie Mills (actor), is a complete and utter WP:NACTOR fail: just two roles in two short films, one of which hasn't been released yet. I would be tempted to say WP:TOOSOON except there's nothing here to indicate that the subject will ever achieve notability! Subject is so low profile that I actually think it probably should have been WP:CSD'ed under WP:A7 rather than AfD'ed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel the subjects extensive modelling career and fanbase on social media are enough to warrant this article. The article has been extended, without sources, but majority is factual, relevent. No reason to delete as above user suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordeych (talk • contribs) 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Lordeych (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
- Then where are the WP:RS sources indicating this "extensive modelling career"?! No sources = no proof of notability. (And if truly primarily known as a model, the article should be moved to Charlie Mills (model)...) Also, a "fanbase on social media" is irrelevant unless noted as such in reliable independent secondary sources. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor roles at this level are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and per IJBall--178.222.144.4 (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ please refer to first source, mention of birth date and fanbase. Bizzinsider (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You already voted--178.222.144.4 (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FamousBirthdays.com is WP:NOTRS (see this). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:11, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Elson[edit]

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

Could not find any sources to show the subject is notable, as per WP:BIO. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A google scholar search shows that he easily passes WP:PROF#C1 for his heavily cited work on time synchronization (18 papers with over 100 citations each, with the numbers starting 2934, 1278, 815, 677...). I removed an unsourced sentence about how he likes ~~taking long walks on the beach~~ flying airplanes; Wikipedia is not a personals site. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for WP:Prof#C1. Appears to have a GS h-index of 31 in a very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep with some GNG in the mix; see for example: "A bigger jackpot doesn't always mean a better time to play"

A CNBC historical analysis of public lottery data reveals an interesting phenomenon first documented by computer scientist Jeremy Elson: A bigger jackpot doesn't necessarily mean a better time to play. In fact, it could mean the opposite.

K.e.coffman (talk) 18:19, 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) 00:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Salomon[edit]

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

The sole reference is IMDb, which lists three acting appearances (two of them uncredited). A search turned up nothing better. Fails WP:NACTOR Narky Blert (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete His only credited appearance was in a film that we do not have an article on. It might, and just might, be a notable film, but I would be surprised. I have no evidence that his role in that film was significant. But since the rule is multiple significant roles spread over multiple films, that will not work, and we need reliable sources. Wikipedia does not aim to have biographies of everyone who has ever acted in any film or TV show everywhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 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) 00:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cregane[edit]

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

Article about a house that does not meet the General Notability Guideline. PROD declined by article creator. No appropriate CSD category. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --NoGhost (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently someone's old haunt in college, safe from speedy only because no one thought to make a criteria so mundane. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Total non-notable nonsense. Bordering on WP:PATENT. If a stand-up NN rationale is required, the most obvious is WP:GNG. Guliolopez (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:40, 14 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) 00:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Rangarajan[edit]

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

An under-19 player that fails WP:NCRIC – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NCRIC. St Anselm (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is WP:TOOSOON. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable. Yet. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This cricketer has not played any First Class/List A cricket.Fails WP:NCRIC.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:55, 14 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 I Don't Know. Amid general indifference... Sandstein 08:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IDK[edit]

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

This should be deleted because first of all, it's a definition, and that belongs in Wikidictionary. Also, it has no sources. Alsamrudo (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Until August 2016 this was a WP:Soft redirect to Wiktionary, which seems reasonable. Redirecting to the disambiguation page I Don't Know would be in the spirit of the current content and the pre-August 2016 hatnote, but it seems less reasonable to me given that the DAB page treats mainly song titles and not the expression as such. Deletion is not unreasonable, given the lack of encyclopedic content. If pushed, I suppose I would !vote to restore the soft redirect. Cnilep (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to I Don't Know. No usable content. Possible someone could be looking for "I don't know" and type that? Eh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:03, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megha Majumder[edit]

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

No significant, independent coverage per WP:BASIC. A promising college student mentioned in a few news articles, possibly notable one day, but WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've not been able to find sources to qualify the subject on GNG or SNG. Some of the sources mentioned within the article (for example NYT) don't contain the subject's name. Further, the sources provided to claim the subject has got some awards, contain the name of some other lady named Megha and not this subject. Lourdes 06:46, 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 merge to The Théo Affair. Compromise between keep and delete. (non-admin closure) J 947 18:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 French riots[edit]

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

Notability is questionable Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Théo Affair. Comte0 (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles and resources are realistic, Encyclopaedic, worthwhile content. Pivox (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pivox --Seneca Quayle (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with Comte0: the riot content is a duplicate of information offered at The Théo Affair. --Dereckson (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total fork. The usual custom is to delete, not to merge. Bearian (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Théo affair. Kaldari (talk) 05:26, 15 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. Article could be re-nominated. (non-admin closure) J 947 04:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sevodnya (1906)[edit]

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

No statement of notability, could not even find sources in Russian language through the help of Google Translate. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a daily newspaper published in the national capital. The newspaper is mentioned in several works from Lenin and Stalin, see for example [23]. We find references to the newspaper https://books.google.com/books?id=wdneenPO-uEC&pg=PA187 , https://books.google.com/books?id=06JtAAAAMAAJ , https://books.google.com/books?id=KsuHAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA168 , http://tolstoy-lit.ru/tolstoy/bio/makovickij-yasnopolyanskie-zapiski/periodicheskaya-pechat.htm , http://teatr-lib.ru/Library/Petrovskaya/Putevoditel/ , http://az.lib.ru/w/wejnberg_a_a/text_0010.shtml , http://elbib.nbchr.ru/lib_files/0/kkni_0_0001001.pdf , http://ptj.spb.ru/archive/37/historical-novel-37/mejerxold-i-komissarzhevskaya-modern/ , http://magazines.russ.ru/voplit/2005/5/bogo22.html , etc.. I think some understanding that we cannot expect the same online coverage from a 1906 publication as a 2006 one needs to be taken into consideration. --Soman (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it's that newspaper that published for only three years is unlikely to be covered in ways to satisfy Wikipedia notability and expand beyond a stub. That the article contains a single line copied from a footnote in it's single source suggests there's not much available on the subject. I tried looking at the sources above but either couldn't locate anything significant or couldn't locate anything at all about the subject. Sometimes I didn't have access to all the content. Do any of them contain significant coverage? Are they all quotes from articles that appeared in this newspaper? Gab4gab (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Delete, unless information can be supplied to demonstrate that the paper was somehow notable other than being published in the capitol.RudyLucius (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:10, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bewakoof.com[edit]

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

Sole author was a clear paid advertiser, given their one focus in starting heavily PR-informed articles, all of which shared the consistency, including in the listed paid press sources, something that is instantly deleted by our long-held policies which make no compromises, and there's no exceptions here; all sources are clear paid press, announcements, notices, company-hosted columns, etc. instantly unacceptable for WP:CORPDEPTH which maintains such sources are still not independent, wherever or whoever published. Unsurprising, all sources found are clearly labeled to the company's own contributions and authorship, complete with mirrored consistency, showing only the company is responsible for its own PR attention. Because our policies have no exceptions to company-serviced profiles, there's nothing to actually genuinely improve. Given there's also clear uses of multiple accounts instantly violates WP:Sockpuppetry, especially in considerations of using accounts to mass advertise, given No Advertising was among the first policies WP set. Any user who knowingly violates WP:Paid, which has legal considerations, is immediately barred from Wikipedia given the WMF Legal itself confirms it's a non-negotiable policy and, to emphasize the blatancy, see the sources: 1-10 are all clearly labeled to the company's own authorship, 3 is a funding announcement, and while any search such as this and here supposedly found news, they too are clearly labeled as company-sponsored profiles, something of which is showing the company is only responsible for its own advertising, given the dates all consistently maintain a timed schedule. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (additional comment post DGG's comments. Lourdes 07:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)) ~~Keep~~ Economic TImes, Financial Express, Hindu Business Line and others are not paid press sources. They are in-depth news reports from highly credible news organizations, which make the company qualify on WP:ORG. Also, the company has been covered by noted authors like Rashmi Bansal in her book Arise, Awake: The inspiring stories of young entrepreneurs, which documents quite deeply the rise of this website. Lourdes 06:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But how can it be independently significant if all of them are clear business announcements, something that WP:CORPDEPTH initially notes of unacceptable, because it's still where the company talks about itself, wherever published. The second one itself has self-supported claims as is the third, all maintaining the mirrored consistency. Paid advertising is a non-negotiable basis for removal. SwisterTwister talk 15:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's been discussion by knowledgeable Indian editors here how bylined news stories in many major Indian dailies or news websites can be essentially advertorial, even if not identified as such. It's apparently an issue. I'm not weighing in on this case or the sources cited above, but caution must be taken. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Article is purely promotional. Company does not seem to be notable. In order to establish notability references need to provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Currently there are 10 references in the article and none do anything to establish notability as they are either direct press releases or derived from company press releases or articles where over half the article is quotes from a company executive which are not independent sources per policy WP:PROMOTION and guideline "Non-independent sources - Press Releases".. The book mentioned above book, Arise, Awake: The inspiring stories of young entrepreneurs, doesn't seem to help either, as the section is about Prabhkiran Singh and Siddharth Munot, founders of the company and the coverage about Bewakoof.com is mostly information provided by Singh and Munot. CBS527^Talk 05:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the references are the usual PR. This can be told both by looking at the nature of the sources, and by actually reading the material. As a general rule, an article created that includes direct press releases indicates either that the article does not know our standards )which can be true of a good faith editor) or is determined to ignore them by making the list sound impressive (which usually indicates a paid promotional editor). The ed. of this article has written several other articles all using the same inadequate referencing methods; however likely, this still doesn't prove them a paid promotional editor--it might just be a persistent beginner who has not yet learned, and is unlikely to learn until the articles get deleted, The way to decide if the material in Indian news sources are advertorials, is to read them. They tend to be exactly what would be used for a press release. It is possible that this is the accepted standard of journalism there--it certainly seems a very common characteristic. Acceptable as those news sources may think it for their own standards,it doesn't meet ours. DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are most likely redressed PR. For example, this one although in Economic Times, is actually in the "Small biz / Startups" section. The source btw consists of largely the company talking about itself which wouldn't satisfy WP:CORPIND. The content of the source such as "Bewakoof.com's latest product category is specifically tailored to cater to this particular consumer base, who wants its fashion solutions to be stylish yet affordable" and "With a diverse range of colours, design options and prints, Bewakoof.com is also planning to add chic denims and other casual wear options in the near future to its superb array of fashion solutions." is marketing speak. The other sources are of a similar type and are not useful for notability. I am also concerned about the possible COI/Paid editing by the creator, see Special:Contributions/Pritesh496. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:57, 14 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) 00:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lugro-Mesh[edit]

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

Lugro-Mesh should be deleted because its original page (ours is a translation from Argentina) is deleted. None of its external links are working, (or in English), and some are unsafe.

Note that the info is not lost, since B.A.T.M.A.N. external links cover this topic via the Wayback Machine. — Cpiral§Cpiral 07:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion opener did not properly substitute the AFD template, so this did not appear correctly in the log. Therefore, this does not count as an official relist. This discussion may be relisted without comment up to two times after this correction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's difficult to find out if this project ever made it into reality - everything I've found suggests that it's a project that is intended to be created but nothing I've seen states that this project actually came into fruition. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:15, 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. There is sufficient consensus. (non-admin closure) J 947 19:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Fire Rescue Department[edit]

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

This is a fire department for a city of less than 200,000. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH; few secondary sources to support notability. The article cites self-published sources for most of its content, as well as trivial mentions in local newspapers. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - What a joke this article even existed in the first place. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is the article "a joke?" You may want to provide an actual qualifiable deletion rationale; the one you provided is not guideline- or policy-based. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bomberswarm2 - Do you have a real rationale as to why the article should be deleted? I'm sure this vote will be overlooked by any passing administrator as simply voting either just to vote or because of a conflict of interest. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to you my conflict of interest is ploicitcs, so how does this have any relevance to anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomberswarm2 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bomberswarm2 - I'm not talking about your conflict of interest that I brought to the noticeboard, I don't even think you have a COI in this area, I'm just saying it could appear to be a COI and this vote will most likely be overlooked nonetheless if you don't include a rationale. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is information on the subject and it can become a better article with more sources. The information is out there but it just needs to be placed in the article. There are many mentions of this organization but being a cities fire department will of course lead to it only being mentioned in local newspapers unless it is the subject of some large event. This is true of most city government fire departments but this article has useful information for people but it just needs some attention to improve it. PartColumbia (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I say this should be kept, there is information on the subject and it can become a better article with more sources. If this was a private company, then yes i would say delete it. But we are talking about a local fire department. It is mentioned in the media, but being a cities fire department will, of course, lead to it only being mentioned in local newspapers, unless it is the subject of some large event; this is true of most city government fire departments. This article has useful information and it is being updated and added to. This article is useful for people, it just needs some attention to improve it. PartColumbia (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PartColumbia: You can only vote once. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PartColumbia - Striking this dual vote. You can only vote once. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article can be improved. Arguing for deletion because it is "a fire department for a city of less than 200,000" seems pretty misguided: it is a city fire department, period. The size of the city is irrelevant. I also believe that WP:CORPDEPTH is being wrongly applied in this instance. Keri (t · c) 21:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge per WP:ATD-M to Richmond, British Columbia § Emergency services, which only has passing mentions. This will improve the merge target article. Source coverage is local in nature, and there may not be enough to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:56, 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. Merging can continue to be discussed through normal channels of editing and discussion, as should have been attempted anyway per WP:ATD. Note that this should have been closed as speedy keep as no one advocated for deletion. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of political factions in Iran[edit]

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

Merge with Politics of Iran. No need for a list, because it is not the best way to organize the data here. Pahlevun (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator uses WP:LISTDD as basis but that page is NOT a policy nor a guideline. Relevant guidelines that merit keeping this article are contained within WP:LISTPURP and WP:LISTCRITERIA. WP:LISTPURP establishes that, "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia." This article is a "list which contains wikilinks that serve in aggregate as natural table of contents for Wikipedia." Therefore, its inclusion is justified. The other guideline, WP:LISTCRITERIA, establishes that, lists "should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." This list is (1) unambiguous, (2) objective, and (3) supported by reliable sources. Therefore, its inclusion is justified.

Having said that, the relevant policy here is WP:EDIT which establishes that, "Wikipedia is here to provide summaries of accepted knowledge [...]; generally speaking, the more accepted knowledge it can provide, [...] the better it is. Please boldly add content summarizing accepted knowledge to Wikipedia[.]" This list provides a "summary of accepted knowledge" as it is referenced by reliable sources. While it's understood that the content can fit into Politics of Iran, a granular article as this allows for further development. As the WP:IMPERFECT policy notes, "incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles." This article differentiates the general topic of politics into a specific topic concerning factions. No other article on Wikipedia talks about Iranian factions today.

Yet, as Thaler et. al expose in Mullahs, Guards, and Bonyads: An Exploration of Iranian Leadership Dynamics, "The overlapping and factional nature of the Iranian regime is a source of its very stability and survival." The authors dedicate an entire chapter of about 38 pages to the subject of factionalism in Iran. Sherill dedicates a whole section of 4 pages in his article. Nader et. al dedicate a section of about 10 pages and conclude that, "factionalism has been more influential than constitutional process in decision-making and policymaking within the Iranian political system." This shows why Wikipedia must have a standalone article on Iranian political factions just as this article provides.

In sum, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and the reliable sources provided show why this article should be kept and its merits.

IdlePheasant (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content is absolutly worth mentioning in the Wikipedia (that's why I asked for a merge per WP:ATD-M), but that does not mean a list is the best solution for it. Pahlevun (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion and that's why we are here to discuss the matter amicably. The reliable sources provided show how important it is for Wikipedia to maintain a standalone article of political factions in Iran. If the issue is that it should not be a list, would something like Factionalism in Iran or Political factions of Iran be sufficient for you? IdlePheasant (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be a content forking? If the article Politics of Iran is lenghty like Politics of the United States or Politics of the United Kingdom, I would be happy to split it into new articles such as the ones you mentioned above. Pahlevun (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you need to look into WP:EDIT, a policy, and WP:STUB, a guideline. Just because an article is part of a thematic doesn't mean that we should have everything under it. Otherwise, why have an article on the politics of Iran when we have an article on Iran? In this particular case, there is a fundamental difference between the broad subject of Iranian politics and Iranian political factions. Politics cover the structure of the system, the parties, the elections, the individuals, and so on and so forth. Factionalism is a very specific subject. Nader et. al, Thaler et. al, and Shirrill prove that there is enough information out there to merit a standalone article covering political factions in Iran (Thaler and his team dedicate 38 pages to the matter alone). Just because the article is a stub today doesn't mean that we should delete it. If anything, the sources show clearly that we should expand it and that we have the sources to do so. Otherwise, Wikipedia wouldn't be able to create new content since everything would need to go into a broad article first and then be split into a separate article. Wikipedians reached consensus a long time ago that that should not be Wikipedia's philosophy. WP:EDIT is very clear in this matter when it says, "Please boldly add content summarizing accepted knowledge to Wikipedia." It doesn't prohibit the addition of stubs. WP:IMPERFECT goes even further by saying that, "incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles." That's the case here. The sources are there. If content is the issue, Wikipedians can use the sources provided to expand the article. IdlePheasant (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Political parties in Iran. Benyamin-ln (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reconcile that with the sources provided that differentiate between a political party and a political faction? IdlePheasant (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, ~~Merge~~ into Politics of Iran. A size split from Politics of Iran is not justified. The amount of readable prose on Politics of Iran is only 16 kb. It should be around 50 kb for a size split to be justified. A content split is not justified because factions are part of politics. WP:SPLIT. It's a notable subject, but an article split is not justified at this time. Waters.Justin (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where are you getting these supposed requirements you mention. We don't have a page size threshold per WP:STUB—a guideline. WP:SPLIT, which you mention, is a mere information page. As WP:IDEALSTUB mentions, a stub "should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it." This stub provides that. The references provide enough information so that other editors can expand it. It seems that your argument is based on content issues that can be easily fixed by leveraging the references provided. IdlePheasant (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political factions and the politics of Iran are so similar and connected it makes sense to me to discuss them on the same page. Waters.Justin (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call them similar. Politics, for example, cover the structure of the system, political economy, elections, and so on. But they are indeed connected so mentioning the factions in the politics article is fine and expected. Holding a separate article on factionalism that goes into details is fine as well, considering the importance of factions within Iran. The references provided show how important this matter is. And, more importantly, the references provide the material upon which other contributors can expand the article. IdlePheasant (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to change my vote to keep. Although, factions are technically different from politics, I think it makes more sense to include them together because they are so intertwined. However, maybe that is my personal preference. I think you made the case that technically the guidelines allow separate articles. Waters.Justin (talk) 11:36, 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) 00:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pillorian[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NMUSICIAN. No broad and consistent coverage in RS discovered after a search. May be a case of TOOSOON. DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I"m inclined to agree with the OP. Delete. — Richard BB 14:32, 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna-Marie Wayne[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. No indication of significant roles in notable films or productions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She has been touring the world with a major Arena show for many years: http://www.thewaroftheworlds.com/live-events/2010-11-uk-eu/castlist.aspx amongst other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.14.60 (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:54, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shagufta Baig[edit]

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

Baig has dubbed a lot of roles, but dubbing roles is generally not enough to show gain notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Poor nominations rationale. Dubbing roles can be plenty notable depending on volume and sources. The question is not if dubbing roles are notable, but if this individual has enough reliable third party coverage to display notability by either by themselves or by being associated with those roles. On the face of it, I think it would be a struggle to show notability for someone dubbing into Hindi but that also raises the question of why would need an article for them on En.Wiki. Still, any deletion should be made on arguements about the notability of the individual and not a predetermined opinion on the notability of dubbing roles. Given the number of times people have made this claim in the last few months, the distinction has proven important to make. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't really have a chance to develop into a usable English Wikipedia article as there isn't even an equivalent article in Hindi or Urdu Wikipedia. I don't see any search results for her. The one source that is currently on there is behind a paywall and doesn't justify any of her information except possibly her birthdate, but can't see it, behind paywall, and it's for a live-action film not a voice-over dubbed film. It should also not be in the scope for WP:ANIME as she only dubbed some Pokemon episodes to her local language and isn't known as an anime voice actor. This could be reconsidered if she has an article on the other Wikipedias that can be well-sourced and not just to cite episode closing credits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now As no credible deletion rationale has been presented. AusLondonder (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be the other way around. No credible WP:RS sourcing that shows notability has been presented. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched a lot but there are no reliable sources. I cannot even find sources to verify any of the credits. At this time, this should be deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I was unable to find much coverage in either Hindi or English (the English search resulted mostly in false positives). I did find one or two hits in Hindi but they don't really appear to be enough to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:48, 13 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) 01:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Mellody[edit]

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

This is more of a CV, scraped from various brief mentions, than a claim of notability. Mellody has indeed been a backroom staff member of various high profile politicians and, as press spokesperson, has been quoted in a number of articles. But there is no coverage about her that I can see. I'm a bit bewildered to understand why the article was passed from Articles for Creation. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 7 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) 21:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think it's fair to say she was "backroom" staff; there are many, many news reports in which she is quoted. However, I agree that none of the journalists were interested enough to write about her background in detail. I was keeping this alive in Draft space because it seemed that she might soon have more exposure, either through her work with Hilliary Clinton or through her work with a marijuana promotion organization. However, since the election neither of these seem likely; the sourcing of the article probably won't improve for some time. I decided to set it free and let others decide its fate.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is all in passing mentions, not showing actual indepth coverage of her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 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) 01:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kayce Freed[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable or merge with Peter Jennings Quis separabit? 06:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being married to a notable person does not make one notable, no other strong claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As with Kurykh, delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peter Jennings. I noticed that Freed was involved with the publication of a posthumous book about Jennings [24][25][26] but, because (1) she is only one of a number of co-editors and (2) the book appears to be an 'oral history' and collection of interview excerpts, it doesn't sound like she has had sufficient creative input to pass WP:NAUTHOR. But certainly worth a creditable mention. Sionk (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a mention in Peter Jennings article is sufficient. Uhooep (talk) 13:41, 12 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) 00:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Arena (band)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMG and no reliable sources confirming notability WikiThreatcontrol 05:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite plethora of links, no evidence of coverage in WP:RS. Overwhelming majority of cites are to blog or otherwise non-RS and remainder are simple listings or passing mentions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 14 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 04:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joypurhat Sugar Mill's Limited[edit]

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

Dearth of sources. Winged Blades^Godric 15:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 17:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have a storied history and impact on the local economy: Gbooks and News, sample article. More sources probably exist. Note: the article names appears to be a misspelling; should be ""Joypurhat Sugar Mill". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman:--What you provide are trivial non-notable mentions.In time of the 1971 war, war-camps were extensively set up every area or so by the administration.Do you mean that makes every one of them notable.The books are mainly trade/industry/labor directories and mentions almost all industries in Bangladesh.How does that establish notability?Winged Blades^Godric 13:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-. Founded in 1963 it is the largest Sugar mill in the country. Has coverage in news articles and books.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911: Where does it say it is the largest Sugar mill in the country. I searched but wasn't able to find it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, this says "...wastes from Joypurhat Sugar Mills, the largest of the kind in the country." Sorry, my bad. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Winged Blades of Godric: You are correct that it may not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. At least I wasn't able to find the indepth coverage required in English. However, this may pass WP:GEOFEAT due to historical/cultural significance. Is the war event significant enough? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942:--There's little doubt about the significance of the war.It was the war of independence for Bangladesh and was a defining point im it's history.But what I am saying is that during the war almost every school,somewhat big factories ,large grounds etc.were utilised to set up war-camps by the administration.And,as I said above I fail to find anything special in this to warrant an article.As a side note and as a person who personally knows something about the topic, I think the best way-out to salvage the article will be through sourcing acc. to WP:CORPDEPTH.Winged Blades^Godric 11:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Thank you for the explanation. Yes, the war seems to be significant but it is not clear how significant the war camp was. One claim of significance could be the fact that it is the largest sugar mill. I am on the fence about this. On one hard I cannot find enough sources (to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH) in English, though there is clearly a good start. On the other hand, the sources that we have give me a good reason to believe that there might be plausible coverage in maybe Bengali language sources. How about a merge to Joypurhat_District#Economy? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942:--I will take that.

Yeah,I scanned across bengali sources but same as in Eng. sources--borderline WP:CORPDEPTH coverage.Ample proof that it exists but nothing about it's uniquiety!Winged Blades^Godric 08:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the reliable sources cited and those included as further reading amply meet WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce:--In light of the argument I put above,how does this pass WP:GNG? Winged Blades^Godric 08:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: There was a dearth of sources in the article when you nominated it. Those identified by K.e.coffman probably bolster the case for keep, but I don't argue on the basis of Google Books snippet views because it is difficult to reliably assess the significance of coverage from snippets. It would be worth consulting full copies of some of them.

Your argument against notability seems unduly focused on the use of the mill's 135-acre site as a Pakistan Army war-camp in 1971, which was just one year in the mill's 57-year-and-counting history, and the subject of only 7 of the 40 sources. I don't think anyone is saying the mill is notable only for being an army camp, or that every army camp is notable (although in my experience every military camp in the UK and US has an article, even if it was active for only a year). The 7 sources cover the war-camp at the mill because it was the location of the confinement, torture, and killing of civilians, actions later tried as crimes against humanity. Three sentences about the war crimes seems appropriate in the history of the mill.

You said the sources you found were borderline WP:CORPDEPTH, but didn't name those sources. That is an element of WP:CORP, not WP:GNG, but in my evaluation, the article's 33 sources that cover the non-war years plainly pass the depth of coverage test. None are trivial routine coverage of the types explicitly excluded under that criterion. At the moment the article is a very brief, incomplete stub, but the sources give the topic a level of attention that makes it possible to write much more than that.

As to the mill's "uniquiety", it is the largest in the country, employing, housing, and serving thousands. In a place where 70% of the population is employed in agriculture, a sugar mill is as important as a coal mine or steel plant would be in an industrialized country. Bangladesh's three news agencies, foremost English-language newspaper, and English-language financial press cover the mill at least a couple times a year. Any apparent unevenness in their coverage is, I think, merely an artifact of which years of which media outlets are readily accessible to me online. I only scratched the surface of the Bengali-language material out there. Suffice it to say, in Bangladesh the mill is a BFD, and not in the sarcastic sense.

--Worldbruce (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the largest sugar mill in a country where agriculture is the main industry is strongly suggestive of notability. We would probably not delete an article on the "largest automaker" in an industrialised country. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 15 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 as no further comments have suggested otherwise (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All About Jazz[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. My search brought up only the website itself and its social media pages, and virtually no independent sources. The only notability claim seems to be that it won a minor award for several years in a now-discontinued category; no in depth coverage outside of its own website. It has needed additional citations for many years and not gotten them. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NWEB after checking notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A user claiming to be the publisher of the website has posted to the article talk page; there also seems to be a promotional element here. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The leading jazz website for some years now (check Alexa or whatever you like). I will grant, not heavy coverage directly of the site, but routinely referenced by reliable sources: NY Times: "(Even) Jazz Makes the Leap to Cyberspace", Horace Silver obit, João Gilberto page; LA Times: Frank Wess obit, Dakota Staton obit; Boston Globe: article on essay written by Vijay Iyer, recommended as a resource for jazz listings; Chicago Sun-Times: Paul Bley obit. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobbes Goodyear: Those links seem to just be passing name-drops, without in depth coverage indicating how this website is notable. Merely mentioning its name is not sufficient. As I stated, this article has needed references for many years and not gotten them. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many other entries that deserve deletion and many other tasks more pressing than debating the deletion of this entry. It should be kept in mind that this is one of the most important jazz sites on the internet and one of the most frequently used sources for editors who work on jazz articles. Neverthless, I'll try to find some sources.
–Vmavanti (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vmavanti: As I indicated, this has needed sources for years for things like "one of the most important jazz sites on the internet"; if this discussion results in sources being found, it seems well worth it to me. "Tasks more pressing" is relative and a poor argument when dealing with a volunteer project. 331dot (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, it isn't relative, but I don't see the point in debating. I'm not a debater. Keep, delete. It's all the same to me. I don't know anything about the process of selecting which articles get targeted for deletion, though I understand the criteria. For example, I don't know how it's possible to write about bridges in Maine one day, then the next day draw the name "All About Jazz" out of a hat and select it for deletion.
–Vmavanti (talk)

Like thousands of editors, I occasionallly follow the Recent Changes page and other means of identifying articles with issues. It's not that different than following the edit history of other users. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – In addition to the brief mentions Hobbes Goodyear notes above, there is a review which provides more in-depth coverage in Music Reference Services Quarterly 16(4)[27]. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In editing and referencing articles on jazz musicians and their works over the past 11 years, AAJ has always been one of my prime sources, though only its bylined reviews (previous discussion). Though that may be an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, it does indicate some importance in a limited field, which point is I think reflected in the repeated award referenced in the article text and the mainstream press secondary mentions itemised above. AllyD (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The second criterion for website notability is: "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". AAJ has won a Jazz Journalists Association award on multiple occasions, as is stated (and sourced) in the article. That's sufficient in itself. As an aside, I'd guess that Wikipedia gets more traffic from the AAJ site than AAJ gets from having a Wikipedia article, so the argument about promotion is weak. EddieHugh (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EddieHugh: How well known can the award be(especially now that it is apparently discontinued)? It's a promotional conflict of interest for the publisher of the website (see talk page) to edit the page about it. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy awards, for example, have their names changed frequently and some are merged, new ones started, etc. The notability criterion isn't for still-current awards, so the fact that the one AAJ won repeatedly has been merged with another makes no difference in this discussion. How well known are the JJA awards? A quick search shows that they're covered by, e.g., JazzTimes, TheJazzLine, Stereophile, JazzFM, npr... that should be enough to answer the question. CoI: yes, but that's a separate matter. EddieHugh (talk) 15:41, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mombathi (film)[edit]

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

Contested A7, clearly does not meet standards of WP:MOVIE. South Nashua (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 09:27, 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) 06:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Devine (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Possible borderline case. Bit part Actor who always seems to appear as cop, corrections officer, security guard. Appeared in Limitless. scope_creep (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant roles to pass our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verified Twitter account with fairly large amount of followers; role on "Limitless" was popular, he appeared in most episodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southampton Music Lab (talk • contribs) 19:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Twitter is not a reliable source and as such is invalid, and it was a bit role actor on Limitless. scope_creep (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Added links to two references in Entertainment Weekly. O17:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Southampton Music Lab (talk) Also, as a singer, he served as the NYPD's National Anthem soloist; his album hit #1 in 4 categories on Amazon when it debuted in 2011 (Broadway & Vocalists; Classical; Miscellaneous; Opera & Vocal).
Comment Additional sources added to external links to further substantiate notability: Spotify, Amazon, Rotten Tomatoes, TV Guide and TV.comSouthampton Music Lab (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IMDB is not a valid reference as it is user generated. I think he will end up staying, as nobody is voting on this Afd. scope_creep (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that the WP:GNG demands, just isn't there. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at all the references. IMO the only ones which pass WP:RS are about his father, Thomas - not Michael. (FWIW I don't think that Thomas passes WP:BIO either, though he's closer to doing so than Michael.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:25, 15 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 20:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TM88[edit]

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

there is no evidence that this artist has had music on a national chart, and I cannot find any evidence that he meets other criteria of NMUSIC, or GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammyeditor (talk • contribs) 05:18, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

Comment I have listed the page in today's log to complete the nomination. Huon (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the article needs work, but there is some independent media coverage, including an article confirming a Grammy nomination (where, admittedly, nominations are cheap). Google News shows enough hits to make some improvement possible. Huon (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work, but apparently has had works chart on multiple Billboard charts, which passes WP:NMUSIC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think its a shame for whoever who did this deletion nomination, clearly they did not do their research of TM88, also considering that they exclusively edit articles associated with Smash David and Go Grizzly, two producers that are signed to the same management company Winners Circle Publishing, so it should be considered that "Grammyeditor" either one of those producers or someone that manages them, whatever the case is isn't acceptable under WP:COI and can be considered and most likely WP:AUTO. I also want to mention that TM88 and Smash David have their issues right now, so most likely "Grammyeditor" is Smash David and just wanted TM88's article deleted for revenge, but this is only a theory, plus "Grammyeditor" doesn't know how to leave a signature, which supports my theory, because of the lack of knowledge they have of editing on Wikipedia. The article needs work, I'll give it that, but he has produced for a ton of notable artists (Google it), plus he has a Grammy award nomination for his work on Drake's commercial mixtape, produced charting songs on Billboard (ex. Bake Sale), this guy is beyond notable and passes WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 05:10, 14 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, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kinare (film)[edit]

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

A non-notable film fails WP:GNG no significant coverage in reliable sources. The article was deleted after the expiration of prod but then restored by Explicit on author's request. No indication of passing WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't have significant coverage nor does it have notable actors or anything to suggest an NFILM pass Spiderone 09:23, 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, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richfeel[edit]

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

Clear company advertising campaign in which several accounts were heavily involved and such activities are instantly deleted by our main policies against webhosting, WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Paid, something we've held since day 1, and there's no convincing exceptions here; certainly not when the sources are all clear paid press, notices, company-advertised financials, activities and other announcements, since it's not independent and only serves to self-advertise their own company. As the history shows, there was persistent activity to make sure this was overfocused in what their own website says, not what an actual encyclopedia publishes; unsurprising, all searches found published and republished advertised notices with their noted authorship, showing they are responsible for any motivated coverage for them, the mirrored consistency is one confirming sign. To analyze the current sources added: 1, 2 and 3 are all clearly labeled business announcements by and for the company and 4 is a similarly worded event listing, which would not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH which states Brief statements, simple announcements, press releases, anything by or for the company itself, wherever published are unacceptable which fits here because we've established no one can take such paid press seriously. We have never compromised with advertisers simply because their agendas are not what ours is, which is publishing an advert-free encyclopedia, while theirs is not. Even searching for sources shows these same unacceptable sources at here and here, complete with mirrored consistency. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. More are available in searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Richfeel and Nargis Dutt Foundation come together to launch 'My Hair for Cancer'". Business Standard. February 6, 2017. Retrieved March 7, 2017.
India, Press Trust of (June 19, 2016). "Richfeel to add 25 clinics in India, overseas in 2 yrs". Business Standard. Retrieved March 7, 2017.
Masand, Pratibha (June 19, 2013). "Richfeel to cheer Cancer patients with subsidized hair systems". The Times of India. Retrieved March 7, 2017.
Mukherjee, Meghna (March 14, 2015). "fbb Femina Miss India 2015 finalists visit Richfeel in Mumbai". The Times of India. Retrieved March 7, 2017.

Comment - Each of those shows a clear labeled authorship and influence by the company itself, including what the company plans were that day, that instantly violates WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT because no one else would know what the company says than the company itself. To specify, links 2 and 3 are all the company 's own quotes and notices about it, there was no independent coverage. SwisterTwister talk 17:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the sources above are clear examples of press releases, and would be no matter where published. If these are the bestthat can be found, then the company isaltogether non-notable. If it were appropriate for encyclopedic coverage, there would be much more, and much better. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

As I stated in my comment, I have listed some sources. More are available in searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertorial, with sections such as "Corporate history" & "Innovations". Wikipedia is WP:NOT a promotional platform for unremarkable businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 13 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) 00:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Schoko[edit]

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

Non notable band. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is extremely short and provides no evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED1:2EE0:141C:9E8B:6F41:2A29 (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability not established nor found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 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. @SwisterTwister: please address Northamerica1000's concerns regarding your statements about the article creator. Kurykh (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four Fountains De-Stress Spa[edit]

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

Clear as a company-motivated and paid advertising which is instantly deleted by our long-held policies WP:What Wikipedia and WP:Paid, which take importance over any and all suggestive guidelines, another maintained foundation since day 1; all sources here, regardless of publication or name, are clear paid press, announcements, press releases, notices, etc., all which violate the simplest standards, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS, which still state anything by or for the company's own promotion is unacceptable. All found sources are also fitting the above profile, given it's mirrored consistency in self-served PR, such as this and and this. The users themselves boldly hid their own paid COI, something that WMF Legal itself states is an instant violation, given it's a blatant misuse of Wikipedia and its non-negotiable policies. WP:GNG itself has always been a suggestive guideline which itself begins with "Subjects may be presumed [not guaranteed] if independent coverage....". Our policy WP:Paid explicitly says users must not use Wikipedia as a business webhost as it's a legal policy, thus self-explanatory and, even if someone wanted to start an article, saving someone's paid advertising is not a option. Our policies against paid advertising have even been met with satisfaction by the WMF Foundation. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @SwisterTwister: Where was this confirmed by a check user as "as a company-motivated and paid advertising".? The article's creator, Pritesh496 has not been blocked. Please provide more information to substantiate your claims. Thanks. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Below are a few sources from a cursory search. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment and analysis - These are the same sources offered above in the search links but even if they weren't, they share the same mirrored consistency, take 1 for example, it's about the "Life story of Four Fountains" and what "their businesspeople have to say about it", that immediately violates WP:CORPDEPTH since it states coverage must be independent and not anything where the company talks about itself, wherever published, sources 2 and 3 share this ("Four Fountains focuses on affordability to woo customers" and "MUST TRY If your work-life is taking a toll on your health, then the Working Professionals Package is ideal for you. In this treatment, they give you a full body massage with sesame oil, working on the tense muscles of the back, neck, shoulder and foot, easing the aches and pains. COST Rs 2,000 to Rs 2,500 DURATION 1 hour" (to quote WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT: Brief statements, announcements or pricing and costs) and that's without then mentioning all three articles share this consistency, that wouldn't even satisfy WP:GNG since it says coverage must be independent and not be supported by primary sources. Next, the author has highly visible signs of sharing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gayatri0704 given the similar patterns except that the account was too old for CUing, something all too familiar to such overseas advertisers. Unless the article is actually improved without having to focus in what the company announced about itself, since it would be unacceptable for WP:CORPDEPTH, the main standard for companies here, there's nothing for what our policies classify as actual notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: I think you should redact the statement in your nomination stating "CU-confirmed", because the article creator, Pritesh496, is not even mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gayatri0704. Stating that this user has been CU-confirmed amounts to the casting of unsubstantiated WP:ASPERSIONS. Please, seriously consider redacting this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are utterly worthless for notability -- checking the ones proposed by NAmerica, and reading them: t

The nature of the DNA article has been already dealt with by ST.

The Economic Times citation leads to a single paragraph of advertising. "Four Fountains Spa focuses on affordability to woo customers. Three years ago, three friends in Pune decided to give spas a fresh treatment and some essentials oil, scrubbing and waxing later, they came up with the idea of spas for the masses!"

The India Today articles is different. It's a combination article listing 5 spas, with a paragraph of straight PR from each of them.

It is not possible to select adequate references by just copying the hits on Google. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 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) 00:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Seaman[edit]

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

Pretty sure this is a hoax. If it's not a hoax, the person's not notable.

I can't find any evidence of the existence of this person. All references are mirrors of this article. Neither Discogs, AllMusic, nor Google itself have heard of Vermillion Memoirs (zero hits, outside mirrors), nor have Amazon or Google itself heard of the supposed one ref, "Phil Seaman: The Lost Soul". Anything that comes up is just a misspelling of the the much more famous jazz drummer Phil Seamen.

The editing history of the article is long, and odd. It has existed more than ten years and been edited about 75 times, with apparently nobody realizing that apparently there is no such person. It was created by an editor with his first edit; his career was four other edits after that. And it has been vandalized repeatedly by IPs (an artifact of this being the "See also" Taher Shah -- various edits have claimed that Seaman is Taher Shah (a Pakistani singer)). I believe someone is pulling our leg here. If not, delete anyway on lack of notability. Herostratus (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Now, this is rather interesting. Searches for "Phil Seaman" find mostly what appear to be misspelled results for the jazz drummer Phil Seamen or the odd mirror of this article. Searching the web for "Vermillion Memoir" (the title of the album) reveals one result for a Phil Seaman, who did apparently release an album called "The Vermillion Memoirs", except it was supposed to be in 2006; 20 years after this Phil Seaman is meant to have popped his clogs. Aside from that one reference, all of the other results for "Vermillion Memoirs" are word-for-word copies of the wiki article on various mirror sites; there's no other record I can find that the album was actually ever released. There's no record in any news source I have access to of a "Phil Seaman" ever existing either. In all, it's looking increasingly likely to me that this is an 11 year old hoax. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, right, I got Phil Seaman's website to load (wouldn't load before). Yup, this must be our boy, since he has an album The Vermillion Memoirs and that can't be coincidence.

Hmmm. All of the links on that site don't load, so there's just the main page. It has him doing a show at "Treacle House, Norwich". Problem with that is there is no Treacle House in Norwich (or anywhere) that Google knows about. And I would think it is highly unusual for a music venue to exist and not have one single mention, not even a passing mention, anywhere that Google can find. Although it may exist and just be really obscure.

But anyway, even if Seaman is real (and the article should be deleted on grounds that its full of false info and is a BLP violation, since he's alive), he's almost preternaturally non-notable. I don't think I've ever checked out an article on anything where there was quite literally nothing except the entity's website. Hoax or lack of notability, doesn't matter: deletion ahoy!

Incidentally FWIW, the article (which has said he's dead from its first edit of creation) was created by User:Pseaman. Herostratus (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nice research by Herostratus & Jack Frost - still not sure if it's a hoax or not, but definitely doesn't pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 14 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. With no further input after relisting, and the initial proposer's objection seemingly overcome, the result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Mull Cheddar[edit]

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

Tagged as needing sources since 2009. The article's only current sources are the websites of the manufacturer and a retailer. I had a go at finding in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources but came up empty. Psychonaut (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some reliable sources and expanded the article. There are multiple instances where it has had some newspaper coverage, so it passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't call any of those sources, except for the Sunday Times article, "in-depth" coverage. But I guess that article, plus the totality of information in the others, pushes the subject over the notability threshold. Thanks for improving the article! —Psychonaut (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Psychonaut: in that case would you like us to close this Afd early as 'withdrawn'? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that's a thing now then sure, I'd have no objection. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I can't say if it's a sure thing. I'd be inclined to keep but there's no harm in letting this run its course and seeing what others say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Psychonaut: You can withdraw or change your !vote to 'keep'. I would recommend the second way, as it enables others to give their thoughts, as evidence of notability can be challenged. Relisting for further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 02:56, 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 redirect to KDE Software Compilation. After additional comments to redirect. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KRDC[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT, as tagged since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment: This is not a broadcast station. Nate • (chatter) 09:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KDE Software Compilation Likely a little-utilized feature of the platform. Nate • (chatter) 09:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place to promote every program unless it meet notability thresholds. Redirect is also fine, with a one sentence mention in the parent KDE article. Not sure it is worth calling that a merge. W Nowicki (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As Kurykh said, redirect or delete? If there are no more comments, this article should be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 02:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KDE Software Compilation - it's cheap. — Yash^talk stalk 00:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above. Some sources exist (e.g. [28]), but not finding enough to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 14 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 Marilyn Manson#Film and television. Redirects are cheap. (non-admin closure) J 947 04:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phantasmagoria: The Visions of Lewis Carroll[edit]

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

The film never went into production. Fails WP:NFF. Koala15 (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems to already be fairly well covered at Marilyn_Manson#Film_and_television and the only thing it's really missed was the 2015 AMA information where he says that he's withdrawn from the project, which I've since added. The rest of it is very general and to be honest, comes across as a bit of a fan love note to Manson, especially the Redefinition of horror genre section. It's also a large WP:QUOTEFARM and some of this comes across a little like conjecture or original research. Once we whittled down those sections there's not a lot there that would really need to be in the main article. Given that Manson was so deeply involved in pretty much all aspects of the film, it's very unlikely that this will go forward without his involvement. It's possible that he'll change his mind, but his 2015 statement seems like he's definitely moved on to other things and won't be working on the movie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per my statement above. If/when this does get made, we can always restore the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 02:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to as @Tokyogirl79: suggests. Unproduced project with no evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:06, 15 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 Waterparks (band). I'm going to protect this article as well so the author can't revert the redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awsten Knight[edit]

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

Subject of article shows no notability outside being the lead singer of a band. Article was redirected twice to the band's article, both times reverted by author. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable beyond the band he is a member of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 3 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 02:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Waterparks (band)] - lots of mentions, but all in connection to the band. No standalone notability established. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 14 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) 01:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkwave[edit]

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

PR-like content which fails WP:WEBCRIT —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources are independent from the subject so it passes the WP:GNG and should be kept and secondly it is not web content so it does not have to meet WP:WEBCRIT. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 14:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KAP03: Which of the cited sources can be considered a reliable source? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. KAP03's article seems to be a neutral description of the game, and the references are on par with long-standing Wikipedia standards for other games, e.g. X-Man, Overload. This is a computer game, we're not going to be able to reference papers in Nature. The writing quality could be improved, but it deserves to stay. --pmj (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of these sources are unreliable and should be removed. See WP:VG/RS. czar 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the problem is that, perhaps except for the very last citation, a lot of the articles seem to be from gamer blogs and websites that might not be considered reliable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there maybe one good RS from Wikiproject list. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: Isn't the TouchArcade source considered reliable as it is listed as such in WP:VG/RS. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 02:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's the one I spotted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that enough to establish notability? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONESOURCE? Not for me. But then it's also mentioned in the Macworld roundup and that is mentioned on the list -- through not the British version, it seems. I don't work much in this field but based on my rule of thumb that "multiple" sources = at least three I'd say it falls short at this time. Delete. But I see it has not been added to the video games deletion sorting page. That may get some more knowledgable eyeballs on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per czar, above--a lack of independent reliable sources means the article fails to meet the bar of the WP:GNG. Review the list here, where I can see one in-depth, one not-quite passing, and more in-passing or user-generated hits. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Shawn in Montreal, Izno, Czar, and Oluwa2Chainz: If we are going to delete this article as it does not have any useful results in Sources for Video Games why don't we delete Mini Metro (video game), a WP:GA as the query "mini metro" in the link Sources for Video Games gives 0 results. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 00:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have an error there: it has plenty of hits. Also look at the article in question and where it's reviewed: multiple reliable, major review sources czar 01:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most notable coverage is brief in TouchArcade and Macworld. Rest is unreliable. Without major coverage in notable sources, this game is not prominent nor covered enough for us to do justice to the topic. czar 01:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only does it need to appear in multiple reliable sources, but in-depth as well. This does not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:43, 14 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 Comcast Cable. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 00:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comcast Spotlight[edit]

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

Should be a redirect. Only primary sources, and simply a promo for the subsidiary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comcast Cable per nom. Reads like advertising in its current state. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Nearly the entire article was COPYVIO from the official website. What's keep-able should just as well be a section on the main. TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Basically the company's ad sales department for local time that most people wouldn't really discern on cable channels and WP:PROMO content; Charter/TWC/Bright House and Cox have the same departments. Nate • (chatter) 15:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and WP:PROMO. MarnetteD|Talk 22:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 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) 00:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Adams[edit]

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

The article is only sourced to this person's team player bios. We need sources outside the team to show that they are actually notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She played in the top netball league in the world, the ANZ Championship – if only briefly it seems. Netball doesn't seem to have a place at WP:NSPORTS so not sure what our usual practice is. You could write a good few paragraphs on her; playing in the second tier, breaking in sporadically to a strong Firebirds team, ultimately moving to Victoria for her education. But that is more from piecing other sources together than ever getting one really big write up that would put it over the top for GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Plain and simple. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 14 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) 00:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Galbally[edit]

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

Per POLOUTCOMES, cabinet officers in national governments are notable, however, cabinet officers in sub-national governments need to meet GNG. While there are numerous references in which Galbally is mentioned, they are the normal and expected quotes and comments that would be routine with her job. DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general major figures in state-level government are notable, and Galbally qualifies as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that "major" - insofar as state governments were concerned - were officers of executive rank (Secretary of State, Comptroller, Lt. Governor, etc.), not officers of cabinet rank? DarjeelingTea (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Galbally is not a member of a state legislature so does not meet WP:NPOL in my opinion. AusLondonder (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's only one cite in there and it doesn't support most of the existing text. The unsourced content needs to be removed, and if no references can be found, it should be deleted. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim of notability here would be enough in and of itself if she could actually be sourced over WP:GNG for it — but it does not entitle her to keep an article that's sourced only to her own "staff" bio on the primary source web page of the governor's office itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Uhooep (talk) 06:52, 12 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stinson Hunter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Is this guy notable enough...? Alligators1974 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Nomination, didn't realise he'd already been nominated, and the consensus was keep. Alligators1974 (talk) 01:36, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil You Know (TV pilot)[edit]

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

Article devoted to TV pilot – TV pilots are generally not considered notable except under exceptional circumstances, as per WP:TVSHOW. Souring consisting of nothing but casting notices does not demonstrate notability for TV pilots. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, unaired pilots, as this is, are not notable except under exceptional circumstances (e.g. Aquaman (TV pilot) and Wonder Woman (2011 TV pilot)). In general, TV pilots, especially unaired ones, do not merit standalone articles, and should not get articles devoted to them, as per WP:TVSHOW. This one does not rise to the level of notability as the examples included above, and so this article should be deleted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unaired pilot, no notability established. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:35, 14 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 MIPEP. In the middle. (non-admin closure) J 947 18:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eldomery-Sutton syndrome[edit]

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

Original medical research. Contains no references, but includes mention of a paper published in Genome Medicine that has a senior corresponding author whose name bears strong resemblance to the editor who created the page. Fails to meet WP:MEDRS and WP:SELFCITE. Mduvekot (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it may be OR in its current form, but it had been a red link on the article MIPEP already for at least four months - I don't think the topic itself fails notability or merit of inclusion on Wikipedia altogether; it may be possible to salvage the article by finding reliable secondary sources. GSMR (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit to include the reference to the publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrsutton66 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Weak Keep - single citation has been added. Haven't checked it for copyvio. Am pinging GSMR and Mduvekot to take a look and see if they've changed their minds now with a single cite. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MIPEP. This is a newly-reported syndrome that has not yet had been reproduced in any other published studies and involved a total of 4 patients. In other words, it is likely WP:TOOSOON to host a standalone article. The contents can be fitted into MIPEP, the enzyme complex implicated by this study, without difficulty. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:33, 15 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 00:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Room Sex Game[edit]

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

This game is notable how? It does not seem to pass WP:GNG in that it provides no assertion of the subject being notable in anyway nor do the sources in the article assert that this game is notable. Is Wikipedia an indiscriminate compilation of all games ever created? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is important. I've found a number of WP:VG/RS that I think might put it on top of notable: Engadget/Joystiq interview, Joystiq/Engadget conference review, Engadget review, Eurogamer sequel announcement, Gamasutra interview, Destructoid short review, couple of paragraphs in a Killscreen "sex" article, A couple paragraphs in IGN "2008" article, separate Gamasutra interview by designer, mention in a journal article. It's not so obvious as the nominator makes it. I'm seeing a lack of depth of coverage but I do think there's probably scope for a page on the designer. --Izno (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS, as listed by Izno above. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Izno and Hellknowz, and echoing the suggestions found in WP:BEFORE. The game has mainstream coverage outside of even VG/RS, with sources available from Google News and even Google Books. Remember, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. -Thibbs (talk) 14:12, 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 as attack page by Ritchie333. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Claire Soucek[edit]

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

This is a poorly sourced article which gives no evidence of notability. Grahame (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not notable. Could probably be speedy delete as either A7 or G10. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¡Ándale! ¡Ándale! ¡Arriba! TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 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.