Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 3: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:40, 3 January 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 January	4 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hera Agathon

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

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

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

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

Non notable minor character, fails WP:GNC; article, like every other articles about BSG characters, consists of plot summaries and nothing else. This is Wikipedia, not BSG Wiki. If you are to vote keep, please select which one and why. Cylon B (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and sanction nominator for repeated mass nominations with WP:BEFORE failures. Each of the four articles, although Kelly's appears to be the weakest, has at least two book mentions available through Google Books in the above Find Sources templates. Each meets the GNG, and thus is not a candidate for outright deletion, and merging is at most an editorial discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of them per Jclemens. RSes clearly exist, and every article is a summary of what they did in-universe, which complies at least on a basic level with MOS:PLOT. Articles aren't in bad shape either. Way too early to drag out the WP:TNT. Karunamon ^✉ 06:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion, as these mass nominations are not helpful. These characters may or may not meet the GNG, but I think individual attention is warranted. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RAN (Indonesian group)

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

Minimally active since only 3 albums listed and news found are only a few news articles from the past 4 years showing there's still no actual genuine substanc for notability here, and there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else. Simply being signed at a label is not at all a convincing factor since we've deleted several articles which were signed but not convincing in actual substance as is the case here, and my own searches of Indonesia newspapers found nothing but few news stories (Jakarta Post, whereas Jakarta Globe found nothing), and likewise, singles themselves are not an instant notability inheritance. For example, this shows the available news but they noticeably consist of only entertainment blogs and similar. SwisterTwister talk 01:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Deletion rationale makes no sense. This is a group that has been together for over 10 years, in which time they have released five albums, at least four on Universal Records, and they have had hit singles in Indonesia - all sourced. Comfortably satisfies WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - releases on a major label. Karst (talk) 12:06, 10 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kosta Petrov

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

PR expert who is not notable. Fails WP:BIO. What references there are, are all trade papers. Writes about pr on Huff post. Still think it is a puff piece. scope_creep (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable PR expert.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, not finding multiple instances of independent, significant coverage about the subject; does not meet WP:BASIC. Also not finding significant coverage reviews of the author's books; does not meet WP:AUTHOR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as it's been CU-confirmed this was part of a mass-advertising and mass-account campaign and thus is not at all negotiable in our policies and there wouldn't be any notability since the sources are simply trivial and unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 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. Consensus is the list has not established notability and only functions as a directory. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of clubs and societies of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

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

WP:listcruft, doesn't appear encyclopedic to list these when all universities will have societies. Might be better to have a category of the articles which exist Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few if any of these clubs and societies are independently notable, and so this list clearly fails WP:DIRECTORY. I imagine that RMIT and/or its student union maintain a listing similar to this, which is where students and other interested readers should go. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep LISTCRUFT does not apply. It is not an arbitrary esoteric list. It lists entities providing a contextualised framework for social and common interest networking and activity in a specific real extant context. DIRECTORY might apply but it is not listing contact details, and no white pages listing will provide such a complete list in the one place. List articles in their own right do not need to be notable, they rarely are, and can be supporting articles to their main articles, which I suggest this does quite well. I do not think we can imagine an alternative, it either exists or it does not - the references links I tried are all dead at the moment too. I actually found it encyclopedically informative, not realising the richness of and depth of such entities available. Aoziwe (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see there is only one link to a RMIT related article from this list. All these societies are listed at http://rmitlink.rmit.edu.au/Clubs/Search or www.su.rmit.edu.au/clubs/, which are probably more up to date then this article will ever be (WP:DIRECTORY might apply here). This list doesn't support a main article either, that would be the case if there was a Clubs and societies of RMIT. That article may be a better solution to have, with clubs being described and supported by reliable sources. Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might be persuading me a bit. Yes I agree Clubs and societies of RMIT would be good. Changing my keep down to a weak one. Aoziwe (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List articles in their own right do not need to be notable. WP:N: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables." There's typically an exception for navigational lists, but this is clear problem of WP:NOT. We need to make the case that it should be included via sources which would establish notability, not by what an editor says is important. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT and WP:LISTN. Wikipedia is not a directory of things that exist. We have lists that navigate between notable topics, and notable lists. What we'd need is for significant coverage of these as a group published in sources independent of the subject(s). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a university enrolment guide nor a directory of social clubs, none of which are notable. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 8 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saasu

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

Basically advertising. Even the article in the Australian is a pure advertorial from the beginning to end, and none of the references are any better. Advertorials are not a RS for notable , no matter where published. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The stories in The Age and the SMH provide only passing coverage of this company and as noted in the nomination statement the story in The Australian is an obvious advertorial and so not a RS. The other references are to specialist sites, and aren't very useful for establishing notability. As such, WP:ORG isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - weak Does not meet current GNG or NSUBJECT/s. However, is this a test of our current NGs? The subject matter clearly has reasonable penetration in its context, with a range of third parties now being involved. Perhaps TOOSOON might be a better reason for not keeping it? Aoziwe (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom Light2021 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "minor tech company" spam. Having 20 employees strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - [1] looks stronger as a reference than anything else here (it appears to be part of an independent test of that sort of accounting software, but by itself that's not enough, and the existing refs are largely reprinted PR. WP:CORPDEPTH just isn't met here yet. --joe decker ^talk 07:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TOOSOON Minor Company fails WP:NCORP --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Bublick

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

Bublick was the owner of a store that had 3 locations in the Chicago area, this is hardly a claim to notability for him, although the store itself may have been notable. The article lacks any sources. My search for sources showed up only primary ones, not secondary ones we would need to create an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and, as above, WP:NOTMEMORIAL DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with all the above. Created by SPA. MB 01:49, 3 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 Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The page history is still there for anyone who wants to create an article on the prize. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Bublick

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

Bublick is only even mentioned for giving money to establish an award is his name to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The award, the Solomon Bublick Prize, may be notable enough to merit an aricle, but there is no evidence that Bublick himself is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:NOTMEMORIAL, not enough sources available for Bublick too remain as a stand-alone, the prize may deserve a line or two at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem article (doesn't appear to mention it there at the moment), then be broken out as it is further developed, note that article creator is Jordan E. Bublick, possibly a relative with WP:COI arising but no mention of this on article talkpage or creator's page, also, was this page previously speedily deleted as stated here (again, no mention at article or here)? Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Solomon Bublick Prize and expand. The award is notable and mentioned in the articles of several recipients, which already link to Solomon Bublick (when mentioning the prize). I've gone ahead and added as many recipients as I could find from various sources (still need to add refs if the consensus is to keep). Unfortunately, I could not find a complete list of all recipients online. MB 02:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced that the prize is notable. It is given by the university, and I don't see extensive coverage of the prize itself in independent sources. To me, this seems roughly equivalent to an honourary degree. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article in the Canadian Jewish Chronicle calls the award "Israel's highest award". Maybe it should be moved to be about the award, like MB said. It seems like a reasonable result to me. Does anyone here know how to search Israeli non-English sources? That might help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 10 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BrandActive

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

The page reads like an advertisement which I can deal with. Unfortunately, I am unable to find anything in-depth I can use to clean it up. A search found nothing to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and therefore page fails WP:ORG. CNMall41 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious WP:PROMOTION; also fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. No indications of notability or significance either. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Franklin

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

Not notable, just a local radio announcer. Grahame (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As a Tasmanian myself, he was pretty well-known locally on radio and TV in the 1980s and 1990s, but I very much doubt he would have been known outside of the state, or possibly even outside of the broadcast area of 7HT and TasTV. The only references in the article are for a shark attack in 1971, and some links to stories about his death in local media. The possible notability claims (drumming in "top rock 'n' roll bands", DJing at Studio 54 and "association with a later world famous Australian Rock Band") are extremely vague and unreferenced. I have to say, my impression was Franklin's considerable talents in promotion were also applied to himself, so I think it would be unlikely that any of these claims can be verified outside of his company's website and the articles concerning his death (which presumably got them from his promotional material). Note: a "Jim Franklin" (which I presume is a typo) is listed as winning Countdown awards for best Tasmanian DJ in 1979 and 1980 in Australian pop music awards. This article claims five wins, but does not specify years or categories. --Canley (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads a bit like it has been written by a publicist. One secondary sources and nothing that appears to meet WP:ENTERTAINER -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything to indicate notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 10 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 history the article talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madeira Youth Wiffleball League

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

Summertime kiddie league that falls short of WP:GNG requirements. Notability, as per Wikipedia standards, is not evident. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Fails GNG. The city itself only has around 8000 people and its article barely says much except census info. League for 100 kids is far from notable. MB 02:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I'm very familiar with Maderia and a children's wiffleball league nearly anywhere would not be considered generally notable, much less in this (fairly) quiet suburb. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is definitely more suited to their blog, which coincidentally, appears to be one of the only places this has been written about. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep"'

This article is one hundred percent legitimate. The league, while it does only have 150 children nowadays, used to have many more. The amount of people in the Cincinnati area that it has touched is in the thousands. It is a staple of the Cincinnati culture, not to mention the notable Andrew Benintendi who played in the league, who now plays in the MLB. Can any other youth league boast something like that? While recognition of the league may be limited now, it is projected to gain notable, national recognition this coming season, as according to their Board of Directors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiffleceo33 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your advocacy, since you are the author of the article and do not want it to disappear. And I am not certain whether you are an impartial observer, given your account name. But the article misses the basic tenets of WP:ORG. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This youth league subject has been mentioned by a Cincinnati paper and a tv station report. It is a league for children that has a notable former player. (even though inheritance does not help) I think more worthy sources may be found. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage in local sources of a children's wiffleball league does not confer notability, and does not pass the standard for in depth coverage as seen at WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Discuss merging instead. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Got Your Gold

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

Not independently notable. No references. Merge with Frank (band) Rathfelder (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator explicitly says merging is the necessary course of action, effectively nullifying this nomination. Perhaps an RfC would be a better way to handle this. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:43, 10 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hera Agathon}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAN (Indonesian group)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosta Petrov}}<!--Relisted-->