Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 12

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 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 [1] 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) [2]), 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 [3] 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. ([4] 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. [5], [6], [7]. --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.

[1] 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.

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

[3] "92 News HD". 92newshd.tv. Retrieved 12 December 2016.

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

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

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

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

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]