Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 12: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:29, 12 December 2016

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 December	13 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Culberson

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

Culberson has the same problem as so many other state level beauty queens. This is all she has done of note, and is just not the level of accomplishment to make someone permanently encyclopedically notable. The fact she was both Miss Tennessee and Miss Tennessee USA does not overcome this fact. The previous discussion closed keep because some of the people might be notable on other grounds, however there are no such other ground for Culberson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as participating itself is still never a significant claim for actual notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Colley

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

Colley's only marginal claim to notability is being Miss Tennessee, and this is not enough on its own to establish notability. She was dating Kenny Chesney for a short time, and got very limited notice due to this, but not enough to make her notable on her own. My search for sources showed facebook and blog mentions but not reliable sources that would bring this article to passing the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding sources to establish notability. I am finding some things related to her dating life, like Kenny, and things about other Amy Colleys.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: run-of-the-mill state level pageant winner; in the absence of other notability factors, such pages are routinely deleted. This is the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Perry

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

Perry was Miss Tennessee USA. This alone is not enough to establish notability. Her acting in music videos is way below the threshold of notability, and the coverage she has received in sources is no where near enough to pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Miss Tennesee USA win seems like it'd be enough, there's no specific boundary within BIO for beauty pageants, but the pageant in itself is notable. South Nashua (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner and in a few music videos is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT in fact applies given how we never, in any capacity, put separate articles for any pageant member. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing stands out about this pageant contestant; in the absence of other notability factors such WP:PSEUDO BLPs are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suzie Heffernan

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

Heffernan's only even half-baked claim to notability was being Miss South Dakota USA, and this is not enough by any stretch of the imagination to establish notability. The coverage is all the "local girl makes good" type. My search showed up no additional reliable sources that might add any possible notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:NOT applies given how we are a random listing of pageants. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. consensus after 3 relistings--a good example of why multiple relistings can sometimes be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.K. Sivagnanam

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

Non-notable social activist and politician. He is not even the chief of the organisation. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep found this while patrolling & have helped a bit with the article, initial blurb looked like nothing but a quick Google search turned up a trove of links in both Indian & international media, as well as multiple references via Google books, for this individual, going back decades. I listed several on the article's Talk page & there are plenty more. JamesG5 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only the leaders of organisations are notable.Rathfelder (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable activist. Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything with a coverage of the person...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I linked multiple articles and a Google book source on the Talk page, and the link at the top of this page https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22U.K.+Sivagnanam%22&num=50 produces several more. JamesG5 (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, not convinced. I went through the Google link James posted. There are several repeats of the same article quoting the subject about a meeting with Fidel Castro twenty years ago, and several other cites quoting the subject. As is well established, quotes from a subject cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. In order to meet the GNG, as we all know, the subject needs to receive significant coverage that is about the subject. Nothing of the sort's been provided. Ravenswing 10:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; I agree with Ravenswing entirely Spiderone 18:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)'[reply]
Delete - WP:POLITICIAN stresses on significant coverage in reliable sources for an independent article. Unfortunately coverage here is minimal. Other than "broken brick wall" and "meeting fidel castro" articles, I couldn't find articles on work done by this person. Even the book simply points out the incident of breaking the wall. Thus the article fails WP:GNG. vivek7de--tAlK 14:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Accommodation_at_the_University_of_Hong_Kong#Lee_Hysan_Hall. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hysan Hall

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

Not notable residence hall, with intricate detail that would be of no interest except to students or prospective students. The residential colleges of some world famous universities are notable, but even they do not contain such absurd detail as a photo of the photocopying machine. Normally we would call this sort of detail promotional. The previous afd closed as Redirect to the list of residence halls, at the university, but the article was recreated. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and then make a redirect page. Clearly not notable. Fails WP:ORG.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the first AfD. ansh 666 20:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Accommodation_at_the_University_of_Hong_Kong#Lee_Hysan_Hall and protect This is clearly not independently notable. I personally think a redirect works well here. It would be good to protect the redirect so that it cannot be recreated again. (Deletion of the history is not necessary actually).--Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as, while watching this from the start, I concur there's simply nothing at all for each their own articles, simply because they're trivial and nothing else significant is established, let alone convincing. SwisterTwister talk 08:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For this case, I would prefer to keep the history though. The content, while not adequately sourced, can used to expand another article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NRJ Ukraine

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

The subject of the article has received no independent, non-trivial coverage. Thegreatgrabber (talk) ^contribs 05:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable article without reliable sources.→SeniorStar (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've found coverage for it. What is the standard for radio stations to be notable? Either way it should at least be a redirect to parent company, NRJ Group. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NRJ Group#International as another of many of EU-area NRJ stations. Nate • (chatter) 04:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect as this is in fact speedy material with such bareness and triviality and that's self-explanatory, let alone the fact there's no actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I don't see a need to preserve the article history as the content is too trivial to bother. After delete, optionally redirect at editorial discretion if desired. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (G5). (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 17:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

End-to-end testing

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

Since only one book is listed, and nothing is said about notability, the real purpose of this article appears to be to publicize the book. A redirect to system testing would be in order with this information included there. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to system testing: It would've been a plausible search term; or should I say "speedy redirect" to fasten it up. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 03:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and KGT. Widely used term in the field, which should go somewhere. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination does not propose to delete anything. Andrew D. (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: While this is misfiled and should probably have been in Articles for redirect, we can decide to redirect. Since you don't have any objections to redirecting, (only deletion) please consider clarifying your position on the redirect. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the proposal to be absurd. The topic is clearly notable -- see the NASA System Engineering Handbook, for example. What we should be doing is improving the topic, not trying to sweep it under the carpet. Andrew D. (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis that terminology is inconsistent or "fuzzy" in this field^[1] and "end-to-end testing" is sometimes, though not always, distinguished from "system testing", as indeed in this article although none too clearly. End-to-end testing is "usually similar to system testing, but [undertaken]... to test a user's complete interaction with the system"^[1] or it's done "for multiple interrelated systems ... to verify that all interrelated systems ... are tested in an operational environment.".^[2] Another source talks about "... a full range of unit, integration, system, stress testing, and end-to-end testing...".^[3](my emphasis) A better article could be made on this topic: Noyster (talk), 12:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Lydia Ash (16 May 2003). The Web Testing Companion: The Insider's Guide to Efficient and Effective Tests. Wiley. p. 37-38. ISBN 978-0-471-43021-6.
^ Information Technology: Census Bureau needs to Improve Its Risk Management of Decennial Systems. DIANE Publishing. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-4223-9876-0.
^ Aviation security Secure Flight development and testing under way, but risks should be managed as system is further developed : report to congressional committees. DIANE Publishing. p. 64. ISBN 978-1-4289-3060-5.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and salvage what content is possible to salvage. It's not a common term (as is noted by Noyster) and a section in system testing would suffice to indicate what the differences are, and the redirect would be enough for the one or two links that may exist or be created. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 North_Rocks,_New_South_Wales#Commercial_area. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Rocks Shopping Centre

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

fails WP:GNG. at 21000 square metres and one floor this is actually one of the smallest shopping centres in Sydney. And has no significant coverage LibStar (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Fails WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Fails WP:GNG, but can be merged or redirected to North Rocks, New South Wales. BugMenn (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now or merge - plans have been approved for the council to sell additional land to the Centre, and their plans to expand have been approved, incluing Sydney's first 24x7 supermarket. No construction details have been announced yet. (I have added these briefly to the article.) I would prefer to see a clearer picture of what will come of this before deciding. Otherwise, I would second the idea of merging it into North Rocks, New South Wales. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

every suburban shopping centre has plans for upgrades. Having the first 24 7 supermarket is hardly a claim of notability. LibStar (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but not all of those plans are approved, nor the council's commitment to sell them the extra land. So they're more than just wishful thinking, which might describe many of those other "plans".--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you'll find in australia most plans for expansion of shopping centres are approved. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as the cknsensus here is clear it's not independently notable and there exists no actual substance, hence there's nothing to actually merge or keep hence delete. This all is sufficient for deletion, regardless

. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm re-listing this for the third time because there is no clear consensus and I feel like further input from other editors would greatly help the discussion. st170e^talk 01:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon consideration, Redirect to North Rocks, New South Wales § Commercial area, which already has some information about this shopping center. No prejudice against a merge/selective merge. Also, the title is a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Desynchronized

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

Zero notability, plain and simple. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NSONG, WP:GNG - Notability is not inherited. Even though the musician is notable, this does not mean the single is. I could not find multiple neutral secundary sources. A google search for newsitems gave only 1 result about a lawsuit. As such it fails WP:GNG. It did not comply with any of the three criteria at WP:NSONG. - Taketa (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per CSD G4 RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Model Odgerel

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

Seems to be fake and/or self-promotion. bender235 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems this a replicate of the already deleted Odgerel (Top Model). This should speed up the deletion process. --bender235 (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:G4 - Identical content recreation of Odgerel (Top Model). -- Taketa (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Seems like a fictional character. No reliable source. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 19:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Playbak Magazine

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

I would quite honestly suggest we have an unspecified paid advertisement here because the author has avidly removed any attempts of changes, including the last attempt of 2 for dele, I still confirm my PROD as it in fact also suggested advertising motivations. WP:NOT explicitly allows removal of such blatancy and there's no questions about it. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A previous version with a different title (Playbak) was deleted as spam (G11). The current version does not qualify under G11, though. However, looking at the sources we have ref. 1 which looks like it's a press release, ref. 2 which is about the magazine's founder and only mentions it in-passing, and ref 3. which is just a newsfeed. The external links are inappropriate links to the magazine's Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts, a link to a YouTube video (not a reliable source), a photo of unclear relevance where Playbak is mentioned, a link to someone's personal website where the magazine is mentioned in-passing, and a link to a site offering the magazine for sale. In short, not a single one of these references provides the in-depth coverage in reliable sources that is needed to establish notability. --Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per G5, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr. GAB^gab 15:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Institute for Administrative Services

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of coverage in reliable sources. - Mr X 16:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:N at this time. Source searches are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [1]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Kasner

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

Appears to be a WP:NOTINHERITED/WP:BIO1E case. The only (and only fairly minor) coverage of him in the news media is in relation to him being the brother of Angela Merkel. His citability in GScholar is pretty low and he does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF on his own. A PROD was declined by the article's creator, so I am bringing this to the AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe he is sufficiently notable as an academic with a Habilitation++ who is included in Kürschners Deutscher Gelehrten-Kalender (encyclopedia of German scientists); the fact that he is the subject of some additional coverage in relation to being the only brother of Angela Merkel, Europe's most important leader, also adds to his notability, but is not the sole reason for it. He is also of some historical interest due to his role within the opposition in the late 1980s in the same small circle that his sister started her political career in, and in the events leading to the German reunification.

In any event, he is at least as notable as Maya Soetoro-Ng (Obama's half-sister who is described as a former high school history teacher and who certainly doesn't have a career that would merit a biography here), Lolo Soetoro, Sarah Onyango Obama, Zeituni Onyango, Marian Shields Robinson, Capers Funnye (who seems to owe his biography only to the fact that he is a first cousin once removed of Michelle Obama) etc. etc. --Tataral (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a second doctoral degree, such as habilitation in the German and French system, or D.Sc. in the Russian system, is not, in and of itself, sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF. I could not quite figure out what Kürschners Deutscher Gelehrten-Kalender is. It is possible that it lists all German scientists with a habilitation degree or a Professor appointment in Europe, in which case it is closer to a WP:DIRECTORY type publication and would not be indicative of academic notability. If it more selective than that, then it would be a good and solid source for Kasner, but it is still just once source. Not enough, IMO, to establish his notability per either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Now, regarding your comparisons of Kasner with the other people you list. The original reason that the news media became interested in them may have been their association with more famous people, but these individuals themselves received specific and detailed coverage. For example, Capers Funnye has been the subject of two profiles in NYT [2] and [3], an article in 'Forward' [4], an interview by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum [5], etc. There are no examples of comparable in-depth detailed specific coverage for Kasner. All we have for him are a few brief mentions in the news-media, in stories about Merkel (at least as far as I can tell). Nsk92 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why a relatively brief article in a highly obscure publication such as forward.com should be a better indication of notability (for a guy leading a congregation of 200 people) than this interview[6] with Kasner in Die Tageszeitung. In fact, I see nothing in those other articles which demonstrate any greater notability than Kasner, rather the opposite. In my opinion, it is especially the combination of Kasner's academic career, the coverage of him in relation to being Merkel's brother, and his early political activism during the revolutions of 1989 (in the same small circle in which Merkel started her political career), that makes him notable. --Tataral (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tataral (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the above discussion (WP:OSE makes a lot of it irrelevant), it's pretty clear this BLP fails WP:PROF. Doing postdoctoral work and having a few publications is pretty far from the notability bar. The only claim to fame is being the brother of Angela Merkel, and that's already mentioned at her article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Merckel. No pass of WP:Prof yet, WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- An article doesn't need to pass WP:PROF when it already passes WP:GNG and when the subject isn't exclusively notable for his scientific work. I dare say that Maya Soetoro-Ng, the high school teacher and current Faculty Specialist of Community Outreach at the Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace & Conflict Resolution (which seems fairly obscure), and the other countless articles on relatives of prominent US politicians, don't pass WP:PROF either. --Tataral (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not pass WP:GNG either. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:PROF. I am not seeing coverage that would help with GNG. Which source discusses him in-depth? Kürschners Deutscher Gelehrten-Kalender could be the article's saving grace as a rule of thumb we consider people who are written in other encyclopedias notable, but could someone outside the article's creator confirm it is a reliable source? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:PROF. - Darwinek (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the obvious solution in our policies given that's what the article itself starts with "Known for Angela Merkel", case closed for any independent substance. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to have done anything significant outside of being a family member of someone significant, which isn't enough for notability. South Nashua (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Tour (1997 TV series)

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

Not notable, seemingly only created due to the presence of The Grand Tour (2016 TV series). TheKaphox T 16:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. I can't find anything on this earlier series. Even imdb's page is nothing more than a stub. Doesn't meet the general notability guideline. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the deletion. It gives no info whatsoever and only serves to clash with The Grand Tour (2016 TV series) which should also be moved back to The Grand Tour (TV series) if this is deleted. Dyolf87 (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving The Grand Tour (2016 TV series) back to The Grand Tour (TV series) is a valid point. With only one article there is no need for disambiguation by year. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep + expand stub. For searches related to The Grand Tour, Google Snippets returns https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+grand+tour+episodes metadata for The Grand Tour (2016 TV series) mixed up with episode listings from The Grand Tour (1997 TV series). This highlighted that there is already (extant) confusion and the need for WP:DISAMBIGUATION, so that (in particular) search engines can tell the difference and direct readers to the correct place. It would be great if other editors with a specialised interest in The Grand Tour (2016 TV series) (Dyolf87 and AussieLegend especially…) could help positively contribute to the wider encyclopedia and expand the stub—although it does require real research effort as this is from the paper-era when reviews were still printed out and published, rather than on the internet. —Sladen (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC) (The Grand Tour (1997 TV series) stub creator)[reply]

It would be great if other editors with a specialised interest in The Grand Tour (2016 TV series) (Dyolf87 and AussieLegend especially…) could help positively contribute to the wider encyclopedia and expand the stub - Why would I help expand this article? Is it within my field of interest? All the article tells you is that it was (allegedly) produced by Jupiter Entertainment (there is no source confirming that it was actually produced), and that there was a trademark application filed in 1996. Imdb says there were 2 seasons, but imdb is not a reliable source. There is basically nothing that we know about this series, certainly not enough to warrant an article. If you want to create one, then create it in draft space and move it to mainspace after it meets the GNG, which it doesn't now. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I wish to spend my time researching a twenty-year-old TV show just to fill out an unneeded article? The Google results for 'The Grand Tour' will soon push the 1997 series down the results, as it is TWENTY years old! The Grand Tour (2016 TV series) is the only currently airing programme with that title. All you have succeded in doing is drawing search engines' attention to the 1997 series. Therefore the sooner the page is deleted and The Grand Tour (2016 TV series) returns to The Grand Tour (TV series) the better. -- Dyolf87 (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing mentioned in the article as to where it aired at all (A&E), but this was basically an unexceptional exotic home/estate tour series which was barely notable at the time and certainly isn't well-remembered at all (think a low-budget Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous clone, but without Robin Leach or charisma, or your average Biography clone in the peak of every cable network launching their own bio series). I could be convinced to weak keep if sources are found, but as-is I'm doubting that more than just 'it exists at this timeslot in TV listings' paper sourcing can be found for this series. Nate • (chatter) 04:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Mrschimpf. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The article now contains no citations as the only previous one is now a dead link. So it's now an unencyclopaedic entry with no information of any value and no references and should never have been made. Dyolf87 (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can only !vote once. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know I was voting... Dyolf87 (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navaneetha Krishnan

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

Delete. Fails GNG. Non-notable entrepreneur and page appears to be promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is the co-founder of one of the renowned and recognized marketplaces of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becktea (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company Voonik has a page, the other co-founder Sujayath Ali has a page and Navaneetha has been covered in several publications online about his journey with Voonik and entrepreneurship. So the page must stay. Angreza (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Re-listing for the third time because the participants of the discussion have not added anything further to the deletion discussion and haven't provided any sources for their arguments. st170e^talk 01:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Molinari

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is unsourced, and I can't find anything really mentioning the character, aside from the novels themselves. If someone were to create a list article for Godfather characters, and added this one to it, I would not be opposed, assuming they were also able to find at least some sort of third party source to support the information, but there's no real way this character will be able to support an article of its own. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of things named after Donald Trump. With some caveats: There's not consensus to just dump stuff from one list into the other, or to redirect, but rather consensus is to create one list of all things Trump (with a name still to be worked out) such that it is clear what belongs to Trump or his organization, and what is just named after him. That's because it's clear from most "keep" opinions that many editors consider this a relevant distinction that should not be omitted. Sandstein 08:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of assets owned by the Trump Organization

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

Useless list; all contents and more is already on List of things named after Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 23:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several things included in this article that are not included in the other, such as Central Park Carousel and Mar-a-Lago. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either List of things named after Donald Trump or The Trump Organisation as most entries on this stand-alone list are already mentioned on either of these articles. Ajf773 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs sourcing and explanations, but it serves an encyclopedic purpose that differs from the List of things named after Donald Trump. Despite the fact that as a shameless publicity whore, Mr. Trump has a bad habit of assigning his name to things he and his company own, there are many properties that have the Trump name on them that aren't owned by Trump and many properties owned by Trump that don't have his name on it. Alansohn (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the (uump gh) President-Elect of the United States, Trump's conflicts of interest are important. Ma^t_chups 11:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep owned by the Trump Organization is not the same as named after Donald Trump, one can be in the former but not the latter category and vice versa. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as different from things named after Trump. 04:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)K.e.coffman (talk)
Keep Something being named or sponsored by Trump is not owned by him/his organization. SportsMedGuy (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Trump Organisation and add therein where needed and where it would not be redundant. No reason for stand alone list separate from that article. Kierzek (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. The number of assets listed is not sufficient to merit an article in and of itself, but the contents thereof are still notable. The list is not the same as a list of things named after Donald Trump, but it does fall under the umbrella of the Trump Organization. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 21:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to one of the other articles per prior comments above. --FeralOink (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is general consensus to keep or merge, so I am re-listing for other editors to partake and help reach a solution. st170e^talk 01:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trump Organization, really duplicate information. That article could use a dose of neutrality, for instance on the Trump Winery, it says: "Although the vineyard is 1,300 acres, only 200 are under cultivation ("Acres under vine")." Wow. I'm sure if people knew that 1,100 acres of potential wine cultivation was sitting idle they wouldn't have voted for him. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge as above but into a consolidated list article as List of things named after Donald Trump, which can be broken up into assets specifically owned by Trump Org. versus those in which he has shares versus those to which he licenses his name or brand(s). This listing page should also now be expanded to include organizations owned separately by any of his children to whom he is now entrusting his company and family whom he is putting in positions of political power. Again, the scope of such a list is now beyond that of documenting the Trump Organization – it is to carefully have all of the President-Elect's known financial and nominal interests listed. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A noble endeavour, but is this the job of Wikipedia? Regardless, we don't need this list in three different places (Trump Org, Things named after Trump and this page). — JFG ^talk 07:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Trump Organization. No need to list assets several times.--Polmandc (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge and Redirect explicitly: The Trump Organization page is very long and detailed. The List of things named after Donald Trump could contain many things that aren't owned by him. It is not particularly useful or relevant to someone looking for a list of Trump's holdings. I was directed to this page from the Donald Trump talk page Talk:Donald Trump#Article on businesses owned?, where I asked if there was a Wikipedia page that answered my question: I got some very helpful responses indicating why it's a challenge to identify everything and give a good answer. This page WOULD be what I was looking for, if you keep it, and if it is improved. I appreciate the comments of SamuelRiv above on reorganizing. If you decide not to keep it, then I would recommend some very specific redirection to the Trump Organization and possibly to List of things named after Donald Trump (I found it a "Trump oooh-shiny" page and not very useful.) I don't suppose you'd consider redirecting List of things named after Donald Trump to this page instead? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Pablo Pereira Caro

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

Fails WP:GNG. I could not find any reliable sources offering significant coverage of this person. Odie5533 (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding any coverage in reliable sources after some searching. Does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Crunchbird

HERE IS A RELIABLE SOURCE; https://pig-records.rocks/crunchbird

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) https://pig-records.rocks/crunchbird

No reliable sources in article. Improvement tags on article have been removed repeatedly by author without fixing the issues. Every single reference is to a self-published source: a wiki, facebook, youtube, blogspot etc. and 4 or 5 references just point to a photograph. Consequently I have been unable to verify a single fact within this Biography of a Living Person and it should be removed. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC):[reply]

You are wrong about that statement. Allmusic is not a self generated website or Wiki. Vagrant records Seattle is a standalone record label and has beenin existenxe for 25 plus years in the pacifc Northwest. That "just a photograph" you refer to is part of the University of Washington logo history website which is owned and operated by the University of Washington. Please explain to us how the University of Washington archives is not a legitimate source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.97.141.50 (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

those statements are not true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.136.26 (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to elaborate? Please provide a point-by-point breakdown of the individual statements you do not believe are true, so I can respond correctly. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find enough to establish notability as a musician or meet WP:GNG among reliable secondary sources.-CaroleHenson (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Articles for Creation before writing any more about this. czar 08:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evodant Interactive

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

This is simply a PR advertising business listing, regardless of anything because both WP:NIT is being violated as it's clearly only a business listing, two, none of thid establishes any genuine independent notability and substance; with this said, the links are literally as trivial and unconvincing as it gets because they are not actual significant coverage news, let alone notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WhiskeyZuluXray (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC) I'm not sure how this is any different than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkane_Studios, but as this is my first article maybe I'm missing something.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Its rather short, and there's no third party sources, but its not really overly promotional, that's not really the issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WhiskeyZuluXray (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Agreed, I added a relevant narrative section and updated the references since their own website doesn't point to the correct citations.[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a good doze of WP:TNT; badly promotional article (with ext links in body, a hallmark of poorly written vanity pages). The business itself is non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WhiskeyZuluXray (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC) As per my previous comment, this page contains more info now than this one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkane_Studios. How does this page page warrant deletion and that one doesn't? Other examples of similar pages are: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Studios - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artdink - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviour_Interactive - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bits_Studios - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coded_Illusions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crafts_%26_Meister[reply]

...to list just a handful.

The 1 external link in the body has been replaced with a reference.

WhiskeyZuluXray (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC) But honestly, with the host of issues the page has had. Go ahead and delete it and I'll start over.[reply]

Delete Not adhere to Wiki Standards. Light2021 (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tourball

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

Cannot find any secondary sources and the only reference is a dead link. Does not meet notability requirement for games or sports. Rogermx (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Possible hoax. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Cleere

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

Single tertiary and weak secondary sourcing. Does not meet WP:BIO WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO in my opinion. Unable to locate additional sourcing beyond some indications of 2 co-authored professional journal articles that are paywalled. Please note that I had previously used WP:PROD for this article. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see somebody else's opinion on this, just to make sure that he is not notable enough to be deleted. If you can provide this, then I think that it should be deleted. Basically, I want a second opinion on this. RileyBugz (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed RileyBugz, and I also want to let you know that I am newly venturing into editing articles beyond content and into the realm of more administrative function. I have done a lot of looking at prior AfD discussions and formed my opinion based on that research. I'm looking forward to other input here very much. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional weak ~~delete~~ keep. He has a few nice cites on GS, I'm not sure how well cited ornithology is. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a tought one. The entry is poorly done, no doubts. Still, Nigel Cleere seems a well-establised researcher and author on his particular area of expertise. See here,here, here, here. As the first link shows, his books and other publications, individual and in collabortion, have been well-reviewed, and are popular among general readership (here). But I can't find anything else. No CV, no award, no nomination. We might be missing something here. While science researchers could flourish outside of a university context, as he is attached to a research organization (British Ornithologists' Club), an individual like him must have won awards. But again, researchers unafiliated to universities are often at a disadvantage in regards to being exposed to the media. Those experienced with notability among scholars could certainly help here. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 06:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as what's listed here is in fact sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delete. I'm sure he's a fine author, but I simply couldn't find reliable yet independent secondary sources on this person. Sro23 (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He has co-authored several journal articles, such as this one, which places a bird in a new genus, but I am not sure if that makes him notable. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep the article is inadequate. First,the book mentioned is a standard work, reprinted by Yale University Press as well as some specialized publishers. He is also one oworldCat records such as [7] have been accepted as the needed secondary sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may kiss the bride

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

Very poorly sourced, only 2 of the 9 sources/external links are reliable-ish; the rest are Facebook, Twitter, and iTunes links. I can't find any available online sources, but maybe someone who speaks Turkish can. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - people need to read a few manual of styles tbh.--Jennica✿ / ^talk 18:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - needs TNT. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as literally nothing but their own websites cited, which is deleteable alone. SwisterTwister talk 01:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lightspeed (Transformers)

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

Minor element in the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Prod disputed. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Another bad plot-heavy article about a minor, non-notable fictional character. All the available sources are to the work of fiction itself, or fan websites. There is no content that could plausibly be merged, and making a redirect to some list or other after deletion is up to editor discretion. Reyk _YO! 09:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Technobots. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Notability is not established, so an article is not needed. TTN (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Autobots, which is where Technobots redirects to currently. BOZ (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Starr

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

A BLP lacking in reliable secondary sources that that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Article sourced to non-independent industry materials or tabloids. Recently added Polska Times content appears to be citing to tabloid-like content as well. The best I could find was TMZ and Wikipedia does not generally cite to tabloids. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO as only two nominations are listed.

The notability tag has been contested and it may be best to resolve the issue via AfD. The first AfD in 2015 closed as no consensus, so this would be a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Should not be considered as a 'porn-only' notoriety in my humble opinion. Decent international notoriety as porn actress albeit without awards won; notable for having been a Penthouse Pet in diptych with her sister as well as for her being a Polish celebrity. Creating a page or redirect for her sister could therefore be useful. Nota: the 'listed nominations' mentioned above were oddly removed from the page before the debate was launched (see the article talk page).--DPD (t) 01:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As sources show she's recognized in Poland as a rare Polish star in America. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - She's gained international notability and at present I see no valid reason for deleting, Meets PORNBIO and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starr has won no awards from what I can see. How does she meet PORNBIO? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Weak). Weak because of the dearth of independent sources. But she has twice been nominated for the "Best New Starlet," a criteria for notability (WP:ANYBIO). Less important, IMDb has a page on her. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 05:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Caballero1967: Two XBIZ nominations is nowhere near meeting WP:PORNBIO. Award nominations have been dropped from this SNG a long time ago. Besides, XBIZ is not the Nobel Prize :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Could you explain the SNG drop and why you think the award is not worth considering? We should discard all awards if the standard is the Nobel Prize. I am all ears. :) Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 22:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest reviewing Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2014#RfC:_As_regards_WP:PORNBIO.2C_should_the_criteria_for_awards_nominations_be_removed_from_the_guideline.3F and the discussion immediately beneath that RFC. One important reason was the increasingly outlandish proliferation of award categories and nominations within most categories. One incarnation of AVN's fan awards had categories with up to 100 nominees, and most categories from the more prominent awardgivers have more than a dozen nominees. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Thanks. That link is all that I needed. My caveat was the "nominations" and according to the discussion in your link, the consensus is to remove this rung from WP:PORNBIO. It is an informative RfC discussion. I think that until the reform of the guidelines occurs, a link to it should appear in all of the AfD PORNBIO cases. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 10:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reading the RfC linked and explained above. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 10:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Uh, Polish celebrity - hardly. In addition to the English language article in a minor Polish-American newspaper, I checked Polish language coverage. All I see is an article in regional (provincial) newspaper (Kurier Lubelski (pl:Kurier Lubelski) [8]), a single paragraph at a news section of a bigger portal onet.pl, and a bunch of articles in tabloid Super Express. Borderline at best, and frankly, given that majority of coverage comes from tabloids, trade journals and a single local newspaper, well, I think we usually lean towards delete with no other arguments, and as the remaining question should be whether she fails PORNBIO - and nobody disputed the nominator's claim she is not.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No genuine international notoriety or celebrity. Such claims are based on unreliable tabloidery, including one source whose extensively referenced native-language Wikipedia article [9] points out its reputation for "misconduct and disregard for the rules of journalistic ethics" and "the administration of untruth and creat[ion of] fictional material". What's happened here is fairly straightforward: a flurry of posts on social media claimed (without any credible evidence) that the winner of a quite minor beauty pageant ("Miss Polonia Manhattan") had become a porn performer. ([10] seems to be the starting point, apparently based only on visual resemblances in a few photos. Sources which base their reporting on social media aren't reliable, and can't support a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic performer. Our guidelines clearly say we should not create articles built on tabloid coverage, which this article would be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete we rightly expect better coverage from blps. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both PORNBIO and GNG. The claim of celebrity in their native Poland is very questionable as is the source that makes that claim. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets as {{R to list entry}}. SST flyer 14:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Google News results show multiple articles about her in two popular newspapers in Poland, Super Express (se.pl) and Fakt (fakt.pl). This satisfies the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fakt most certainly is not a reliable source; most of the Polish wiki article on it is devoted to detailing its journalistic failings. The Super Express page is more tabloidery, apparently based on social media postings and riddled with dubious claims -- "the first Polish woman in the porn business" -- not even remotely plausible. Sourcing like this can't sustain a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't rely on an outside wiki article to determine reputation as there is potential for coatracking, and I can't track the underlying sourcing (if there is any and whether it's from competition or an actual academic journal). Even the best of newspapers, most notably the New York Times, have had journalistic failings. I see these populist foreign papers that are in tabloid formats to be the equivalent of something like the New York Post which has never been outright rejected as a source for wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The arguments for deletion are too weak and based on subjective opinion rather than fact. Holanthony (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Grong Sparebank. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verran Sparebank

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

No sources found for this defunct bank to pass WP:COMPANY. The article has also been unsourced for 10 years. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as history aside, there's no actual substance for notability, since everything is simply trivial, and there's enough suggesting WP:NOT is in fact an applicable case here. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Grong Sparebank seems the obvious outcome. It's not like sources are hard to find, e.g. [11], [12], [13]. --Michig (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grong Sparebank. I don't see a reason for a merge, but if desired anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Grong Sparebank with which the bank merged in 2006. If anyone can find sources in the future to meet WP:NCORP, feel free to resurrect the article. — Sam Sailor 14:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Afuni

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

Poorly sourced and I'm failing to find reliable online sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear WP:NOT material given only his websites are offered as information and sources. SwisterTwister talk 01:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 21:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Asif Shahid

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt given the 3 deletions now and it's clear in the sheer blatancy of it existing again within 4 months again; if this should ever come in mainspace again, it will be at AfC, not by a starting user themselves. WP:NOT applies because it's clear this is not going to be anything else but advertising. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article Dr Asif Shahid should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (Dr Asif Shahid is a notable journalist from Pakistan)^[1]^[2]^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7]

References

^ Dr Asif Shahid (15 April 2009). "Taliban, ISI and future of Pakistan (in Urdu:طالبان، آئی ایس آئی اور پاکستان کا مستقبل)". sachiidosti.com. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
^ "Pakistani Newspapers". Online Newspapers. onlinenewspapers.com. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
^ "92 News HD". 92newshd.tv. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
^ "Dr Asif Shahid". Pakistani Journalists. pakistanijournalists.blogspot.com. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
^ "Daily Nai Baat Lahore". naibaat.com.pk. Chaudhry Abdul Rehman. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
^ "Daily Khabrain Lahore". Zia Shahid. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
^ Dr Asif Shahid. "Taliban Or Pakistan Ka Mustaqbil". sachiidosti.com. Retrieved 12 December 2016.

--Muhammad Farooq (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of removing the link to "revolvy.com" in your list above. That site is a mirror of wikipedia; he is included in that folder based on his inclusion in the category here. This undermines your position that he is independently notable, so I presume you don't mind the removal. Kuru (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable medical doctor and journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete bunch of SPS, other non-independent sources, and passing mentions. Obviously promotional.Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt almost every ref is fake. one of them downloaded malware onto my computer. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete The lack of independent coverage means that he does not appear notable when judged against WP:BASIC or WP:JOURNALIST. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruiser (band)

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

Can find only one source on ITunes, and it does not list any hits, top concerts, etc. Does not meet notability requirement for Media and Music. Rogermx (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:BAND.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devinda Subasinghe

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. All the references are deadlinks- there is no evidence to support notability. Dan arndt (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete 4 gnews hits and small mentions says it all. watch as the keep !voters say he's an ambassador to a major country and gets a free pass for notability. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayathri Ranjani Samarakone

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

Fails WP:BIO. High Commissioners are not inherently notable. Unable to find any indepth coverage about any of her roles.Dan arndt (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete High comissioners like ambassadors are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I meant to comment far sooner, there's nothing genuinely substantial aside from the name itself and there's nothing to suggest the confirmed notability in an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Ash2003-1] Lydia Ash (16 May 2003). The Web Testing Companion: The Insider's Guide to Efficient and Effective Tests. Wiley. p. 37-38. ISBN 978-0-471-43021-6.

[2] Information Technology: Census Bureau needs to Improve Its Risk Management of Decennial Systems. DIANE Publishing. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-4223-9876-0.

[3] Aviation security Secure Flight development and testing under way, but risks should be managed as system is further developed : report to congressional committees. DIANE Publishing. p. 64. ISBN 978-1-4289-3060-5.

[4] Dr Asif Shahid (15 April 2009). "Taliban, ISI and future of Pakistan (in Urdu:طالبان، آئی ایس آئی اور پاکستان کا مستقبل)". sachiidosti.com. Retrieved 12 December 2016.

[5] "Pakistani Newspapers". Online Newspapers. onlinenewspapers.com. Retrieved 12 December 2016.

[6] "92 News HD". 92newshd.tv. Retrieved 12 December 2016.

[7] "Dr Asif Shahid". Pakistani Journalists. pakistanijournalists.blogspot.com. Retrieved 12 December 2016.

[8] "Daily Nai Baat Lahore". naibaat.com.pk. Chaudhry Abdul Rehman. Retrieved 12 December 2016.

[9] "Daily Khabrain Lahore". Zia Shahid. Retrieved 12 December 2016.

[10] Dr Asif Shahid. "Taliban Or Pakistan Ka Mustaqbil". sachiidosti.com. Retrieved 12 December 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Culberson (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Colley}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tucker Perry}}<!--Relisted-->