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 no consensus. Participants of the discussion have not reached a consensus after 2 relists. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CET Piteşti

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

Non notable structure, backed up by only a voutube video as a source XyzSpaniel Talk Page 23:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 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 18:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably to List of tallest structures in Romania#CET Piteşti] (with creation of a target anchor in the CET Piteşti row in the list-article). Deletion would be wrong obviously, in my opinion, as there is the good alternative to deletion of merging the material and leaving a redirect behind. I say Merge rather than Keep because the article is very weak and its substantial content is not more than can be included in a row in the table at List of tallest structures in Romania So what if there is a Youtube video as a source, there is nothing wrong with Youtube videos being used like photographs that establish the reality of something, and it can be used as a source in the table row. Leaving the redirect preserves edit history and allows for re-creation if/when there is more material including sources. --do ncr am 01:25, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cor Fijneman

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

Article contains original research and the references do not indicate significant third-party notability, which is not enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Hakken (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lacks significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I created this article when I was a novice WP editor. My perception now is that we should not create articles on topics that don't have a chance at ever being a comprehensive article with various elements to discuss. Dawnseeker2000 03:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the above editor hadn't expressed agreement, this would be an easy delete call due to unavailability of good sourcing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dawnseeker. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:08, 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) 09:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zesle

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

No non-primary sources, and I can't find any reliable sources that cover it. Non-notable. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear existence for business listing uses (WP:NOT applies), not an actual article, and there's absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise at all. SwisterTwister talk 01:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A primary-sourced article on a newly-released software tool. No evidence provided or found to indicate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SwisterTwister. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:09, 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 Article was indeed speedily deleted, making this moot. (non-admin close) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Serplogic

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

Delete: This article does not have any independent reliable sources, as Serplogic is NOT a notable brand or website for inclusion in Wikipedia. Of the three references, one is a press release. Please delete this article.

Strong Delete: After reviewing the website of Serplogic, I found that they "sell Wikipedia pages", and editorial links (pay-to-play), which is against TOS of all news websites they are selling. Also, the website has no notability, aside from one news link they purchased, in which still shows no impact the site's made to be worthy of article space. Furthermore, the fact that this subject sells Wikipedia pages, I think Serplogic should be blacklisted from Wiki for deceitful practices. "AJ Agrawal" from Inc, he is a well-known pay-to-play contributing author who gives editorial links to random people in exchange for money. "Tommy Macdonald" upon doing research I found that his business is solely run by pay-to-play services with unethical writers who are desperate for money. Additionally, the Digital Journal article is a press release - press releases are not reliable sources. Tech Cocktail isn't a reliable source either. Macdonald also has a ton of disputes on ripoff report claiming he has scammed people and sells blackhat services to manipulate Google's SEO algorithm. Macdonald is lucky Google hasn't penalized his website, that's until someone snitches. I don't think anything else should be said except: speedy deletion. Scorpion293 (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Scorpion293: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 21:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article should be speedy deleted A7, and not wait for the AfD process.--Jersey92 (talk) 04:36, 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 merge to List of minor DC Comics characters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Condiment King

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

This doesn't establish notability. The previous AfD was delete, but this was recreated. As far as current available sources go, the best the search has to offer are a couple "Top X" articles. While they can certainly be included in articles, that should not be enough to dedicate an entire article to a minor character. TTN (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete: While the character appears in 5 mediums (multiple comic book series, two animated series, animated film, video game, collectible miniatures game) and has been a subject in recent interviews and film trailers, I'm no longer convinced of sufficient notability. All mentions I have found are either tertiary or in passing. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Appearing in a variety of media indicates, but does not establish, notability. Jtrevor99: Could you please provide the sources you're referring to so that they can be assessed? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I've changed my opinion after reviewing the first five sources I came across. All proved either to be tertiary (when they appeared at first glance to be secondary), or were no more than in-passing mentions. This character should be relegated to List of minor DC Comics characters. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect as above, unless some better sources are forthcoming. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:33, 14 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 18:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of minor DC Comics characters. While I really wish this guy was notable, he's really not. The hits that come up with the various searches that are from reliable sources are just very trivial mentions, such as listing him as appearing in the Lego Batman games. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (as above) lol - minor character at best. Looks like one of those silly Jack Kirby characters from his era. Not every minor character in the marvel universe can have it's own page.... - merge to List of minor DC Comics characters. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:31, 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 speedily deleted by RHaworth. (non-admin closure)—UY Scuti ^Talk 18:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skam Impaired

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

I cannot find reliable sources about this band. (See the notability requirements for musicians and bands) The only thing resembling third-party coverage is this but I don't think it qualifies as reliable since it's a wiki. (They also have a Discogs discography, a Facebook, a bandcamp and so on) Pichpich (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 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. Sandstein 10:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American influence in the Honduran general election, 2009

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

As far as I can tell, this is not a notable topic. It has been touched upon very recently because of the Russian intervention in the 2016 United States presidential election, but otherwise seems to fails WP:GNG. I see no reason why this can't be covered in a couple of sentences at Honduran general election, 2009, once the gratuitous Hillary swipes are removed. - Mr X 20:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quite POV attack page which appears to exist merely as a vehicle for negative criticism towards a person. After delete, suggest redirect to Honduran general election, 2009. Sagecandor (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To address this concern, I've removed every personal name from the article, except those of Honduran politicians. BlueSalix (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really necessary? Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:POVFORK. Can be addressed (and in fact is already addressed to an extent) at a large number of other pages: Honduran general election, 2009; Honduras–United States relations; 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis; Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis; International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état, etc.. By the way, this is also addressed at Political positions of Hillary Clinton#Latin America. Any content here could easily be placed in the appropriate spot in one of these six (!) other pages. Neutrality^talk 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see this "POVFORK" thing mentioned several times, but it strikes me that a POV fork implies there's another article differing only in presenting the opposite point of view. I don't think anyone has yet set down the opposing point of view in those articles - nobody is denying the U.S. had influence that I know of - and if we had such an article to point at it would be easier to decide how to merge this. We have a lot of messy organizations of multiple articles about many topics, but calling them a "POV fork" doesn't help sort them out. Wnt (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete curious article creation given the involvement in 2016 United States election interference by Russia, seems like a suspicious creation. This was a minor incident already covered in other artiles mentioned above, there is not enough here to stand on it's own. ValarianB (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand Meets our GNG. Material focuses on U.S. role in election, and is expandable (article was only recently created); despite what Neutrality says, the material is not covered in Honduran general election, 2009 and it is bizarre that we would demand readers go to Political positions of Hillary Clinton#Latin America in order to access information about elections in Honduras (may be a case of systemic bias or Americentrism). Finally, with due respect to the newly minted accounts who have flocked to this AfD and are accusing the timing of this article to be "curious" (one of these new SPAs has recently declared "Russians" are infiltrating WP at the NPOV Noticeboard) I hereby declare "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party," or whatever the underlying implication of the "curious" remark is. (Believe it or not, all of WP isn't focused on the recent U.S. election or its ensuing drama.) Also, GF pinging editors who have recently been active on Honduras-related politics topics including User:Boicoteterno, User:Dove, User:Nightstallion, User:Boud, User:Ceyockey, User:George Ho; and on this article specifically: User:Number 57, User:Callmemirela. BlueSalix (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, despite your claim, this is directly mentioned in Honduran general election, 2009 ("While some regional nations did not accept the election as valid, others including the United States have supported its legitimacy....Bertha Oliva of COFADEH criticised the United States government for stating that Honduras could hold 'free elections in less than three weeks' when 'Hondurans [were being] subjected to arbitrary arrest, the closure of independent media, police beatings, torture and even killings by security forces'"). It's mentioned even more extensively in several of the five other articles relating to the Honduran election (Honduras–United States relations has a full cited paragraph on it). If you think that the content should be expanded or changed, then feel free to do that — but don't pretend that this isn't or couldn't be addressed elsewhere, because it is.

Also, it is not very helpful to misrepresent the views of other editors. Neither I nor any other editor "demanded" that readers go to Hillary Clinton political positions page. Rather, we have pointed out that the U.S.'s role in the 2009 Honduran political crisis is covered in multiple articles from multiple perspectives, and we don't need this blatant POVFORK. Neutrality^talk 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What POV is this exactly forking? Just because an article may not show the U.S. in a shimmering golden light, the great white savior of western civilization, does not constitute NPOV if it's sourced and factual and represents a self-contained subject, as this does. Let me guess, you also want to delete United States war crimes and merge it into the respective war articles as a POV Fork? With all due respect, I don't think WP:POVFORK means what you think it means. BlueSalix (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you're coming at this from an ideologically-laden standpoint, so I'm not sure further back-and-forth would be productive at all. But to be very clear: it is a POV fork because (a) it was created, by you, to be a counterpoint to the Russia article, and (b) because the sources do not reflect that the U.S. meddled in the elections. The sources seem to reflect that the U.S. did accept the coup after the fact, but I haven't see any source that frames the issue as "U.S. influence on the election." You seem to basically be trying to shoehorn in the facts and sources to fit your new article title. Neutrality^talk 00:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you have proof of my motivation (i.e. diffs), or is this just a shotgun personal attack to see what you can get to stick? It seems to me you're coming at this from an ideologically laden, pro-America, standpoint. You haven't advanced a rational, policy-based argument, only impugned my motivations without diffs to subject us to some kind-of patriotic, flag-waving exercise to get rid-of articles that don't portray the U.S. as a shining defender of freedom because ... 'murica! (AKA - WP:IDONTLIKEIT) And, you've rallied your ideological compatriots - and their freshly minted, 3-week old accounts who have all the edit patterns indicative of paid editors - into some kind-of marauding band of Wikilantes that have been tearing through AfDs. BlueSalix (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of that was relevant to what I asked (and is mostly a pretty silly personal attack on me). I'll ask again. (1) Do you have significant, reliable sources that frame the issue as "U.S. influence on the election"? Not U.S. support for legitimizing the post-coup government, not U.S. deliberations on the legality of the coup, but "U.S. influence on the election"? (2) Is there any reason whatsoever to think that the content of this article could not be placed in one of the 5-6 other relevant articles? that I've identified above Neutrality^talk 00:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC

And P.S.: for the record, I do resent your claim that I've "rallied" anybody, much less "compatriots" (who are somehow both "paid" and "ideological"). It's an unambiguous personal attack, it's wrong, and it poisons discussion. So please don't do it. Neutrality^talk 00:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a personal attack on you; what is a personal attack is your un-diffed claim about me that "it's clear that you're coming at this from an ideologically-laden standpoint." BlueSalix (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(A) It is a personal attack to baselessly accuse an editor of having "rallied his paid, ideological compatriots" to an article.

(B) As to the "ideologically laden" statement: I think it's quite reasonable to interpret your comments on this very thread as such (i.e., overwrought references to "McCarthyism" (diff); claims that editors who reasonably disagree with you are somehow complicit in a "patriotic, flag-waving exercise" to portray the U.S. as a "shimmering golden light, the great white savior of western civilization."). My statement that this language is ideologically laden and unhelpful was not meant to be a knock on you, but as a comment that discussions are not productive when we resort to caricatures.

(C) But I want to go back to the merits of the deletion discussion. I asked these questions above, but received no response: (1) Do you have significant, reliable sources that frame the issue as "U.S. influence on the election"? Not U.S. support for legitimizing the post-coup government, not U.S. deliberations on the legality of the coup, but "U.S. influence on the election"? (2) Is there any reason whatsoever to think that the content of this article could not be placed in one of the 5-6 other relevant articles? Neutrality^talk 23:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueSalix, I'm convinced that you created this article as a counterpoint to 2016 United States election interference by Russia, and there is evidence to back that up, for example this wantonly POV edit. Your above comment attacking Neutrality and obliquely attacking other editors is way out of bounds. - Mr X 00:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does that show, exactly? I stand-by that edit (added when the article was called "fake news" not "fake news websites" as it's since been renamed). It was reverted before a source [1] could be added. But, regardless, it has nothing to do with Honduras. BlueSalix (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Seems to fit the definition of a POV fork. User: Neutrality has the right Idea. Split this off into those other articles.~~ Yellow Diamond's Pearl (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another ~~month-old account~~ two-week old account flocking to this AfD to !vote "Delete." I'm not a suspicious person, but ... it's like you guys aren't even trying to look legit at the dozens of articles you're purging and massaging right now. Too funny. BlueSalix (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I read the article. Don't worry. And, well, I may be new, but I think I know what I'm doing.(Oh, and, what does 'massaging' mean in this context?)--Yellow Diamond (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment — I'll look at this more carefully shortly, but my first impression would be to merge as a subsection into the Controversies section of the Honduran general election, 2009 article or have it stand as its own top level section in that article; the title should remain as a redirect to the new section, and all supporting material should be merged in with a significant reduction in composed text. There is no reason for outright deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That's rad—Sagecandor—to compare a historical page about 2009 with one about the elections a few weeks ago. I accuse you of stirring the pot, sir Sage & sir Salix. As BlueSalix said it's a shame not to have any of the tight prose and good refs from here in this article, which needs its refs properly developed. Where do I get this "ref-fill" gizmo robot vaccuum tube anyway, User:Sagecandor? You just used it at PropOrNot, I saw you. ^^ I see Neutrality's here. again. Hello, User:Neutrality. Someday on the talk page, the title of the page should be discussed. US influence or American influence? But definitely before deciding where the content should go, it should be collected somewhere other than primarily on HRC's political position's page. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is covered in numerous sources. Clearly the only reason why this is pegged for deletion, while 2016 United States election interference by Russia) is not, is flagrant WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. In the latter case, we're talking about troll armies and credible hacking allegations. In the former case, we're are talking about abetting a coup and facilitating a post-coup transition, after decades treating the country and the region as a backyard. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why this article is tagged is that someone nominated it for deletion. You or any other Wikipedia editor can nominate the other one if you want, and then they will have the same fun as people are having here. But ... this one was more eligible, as it goes, because less had been done with it so far - articles often stay merged simply because nobody has built them big enough to be worth separating. It was also sort of created to make a point, I suspect. And the foreign influence in Honduras was more explicitly multinational via the OAS, making the selection of a single foreign country more questionable than in the U.S. where a joint statement of many intelligence agencies pointed the finger at just one country. Wnt (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is maybe a paragraph or two in another article, not this WP:POVFORK. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article is rather poorly written right now. It is not particularly easy to evaluate an article when even the opening sentence is rather poor, and as someone not previously versed in the topic, I am left wondering if a title along the lines of "US American influence in the Honduras post-coup transition 2009" would be better. I also see the poor state of the article carrying over into this debate, which has been substandard in my opinion. For instance, those alleging a POV fork did not state which article is being forked - I see several articles in the general topic area being mentioned, but other articles in the same topic area existing are not a strong argument for deletion. This article has a unique focus in terms of the two countries involved (US and Honduras), the time frame (2009) and the location (Honduras). This focus matches what is set out in the Guardian, NYT, WaPo and Harvard Political Review sources. This establishes notability and mandates that we develop this article in a balanced way. The details should be determined via BRD and the talk page in the first instance. Samsara 09:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete obvious POV fork. Jytdog (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but discuss merges. AFD sometimes gives "merge" as a result, but in this case it is not obvious how best to organize the content - merge to what? It isn't necessary to delete any edits here so only admins can see them, and I think people can settle a merge discussion either on the talk page or through the contested merges process. I think, at least in this instance, the focus of this article can readily be broadened to all foreign influence, since it is silly to have the OAS almost condemning the election be relevant only in the sense that the U.S. opposed that. A simple rename of the standalone article to "Foreign influence in...", with accompanying broadening of focus, might be merge enough. Or that could become a section in the election or constitutional crisis article. Wnt (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agree the page needs renaming and could eventually be merged elsewhere. Agree that foreign influence is a better idea, seeing the discussion of the DEA's subsequent role, the Inter-American Development Bank's subsequent role^[1] and the US-friendly oligarch Miguel Facussé Barjum's role in the coup. -- SashiRolls (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Frank, Dana (March 9, 2015). "Just Like Old Times in Central America". Foreign Policy. Retrieved December 14, 2016.

Delete as a blatant POV FORK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh oh, looks like the renamed villagers are getting out their forks. sigh.~~ SashiRolls (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful. WP:NPA comment like this that does not focus on the content discussion. Sagecandor (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls: This is an unambiguous and unhelpful personal attack. You've been cautioned about this in the past. Please stop. Neutrality^talk 18:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unarmed, Neutrality, I didn't even bring a spoon. SashiRolls (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sashi, you might want to strike that personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I also warned another editor on another article concerning what I think you'll agree can more seriously be considered personal attacks: here

Delete. POV fork from International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état which presents quite a different picture of US reactions and actions. The main point of the fork seems to be that the US should have interfered post-election but didn't. Contains misquoted references and references that read like someone is trying to rerun the Democratic primary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find you a Dana Frank article that isn't also focused on calling out presidential candidates for their misleading statements. I think there's one in Foreign Policy, too from a while back that supports the same claim. When I arrived there was no mention of the School of the Americas or of the continued military assistance, which along with US opposition to the OAS' desire to condemn the election are indeed worthy of note. The US did interfere post-coup by continuing their military assistance whereas the US Congress had passed legislation explicitly forbidding it in case of a military coup. SashiRolls (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it appears she only mentions Section 7008 of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of 2009 in this article, she doesn't specifically mention it in other articles I've checked. By the way, Space4_tl I've decided to improve the article since the text will likely end up somewhere. Could you please be so kind as to list any and all of the "misquoted sources" you found below? Thanks. SashiRolls (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You write "The US did interfere post-coup by continuing their military assistance." What does this have to "U.S. election influence"? If there is content on U.S. aid, the controversy surrounding it, or any U.S. reaction/role in the coup, then this content belongs at (and in some cases is already at) Honduras–United States relations; 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis; Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis; International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état, 2009 Honduran coup d'état, etc. Not at this newly created page. Neutrality^talk 18:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the plane taking the deposed president to Costa Rica did refuel in a US air-force base and the US did break the OAS's will to oppose the election which nobody on the continent really wanted. Curious about this Arcadia foundation that Zelaya blames. Is http://arcadiafoundation.org/?p=3247 an RS on es.wikipedia.org ? ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the allegation that someone started this due to the Dem primary is not a good argument for deletion. The topic was and remains independently notable regardless of US politicking; in fact it's no longer brought up by US politicians at all, which will help editors focus on the topic of US-Honduras relations rather than partisan bickering. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POVFORK. Having a standalone page for this gives undue weight to a particular stance. The 'influence' is not even really shown in the text.Yellow Diamond (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me Yellow Diamond but didn't you already !vote?- MrX 20:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that's the last time I use my dangerous-connections alt for this. How do I do a slash-thing?Yellow Diamond (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - <s>~~Like this.~~</s>
Do not delete but merge into Honduran general election, 2009 - The article is a little too small to be a stand-alone article. However, the content is too valuable to be removed or deleted. Instead, merge into the other parent article. George Ho (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~On second thought, Rename to a more accurate title like American reaction to the 2009 Honduras coup. Make the article more neutral. But don't just burn it all.~~Yellow Diamond (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Diamond: We already have International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état, in which the U.S. reaction is already mentioned (fairly extensively). Neutrality^talk 21:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Merge into that article. This current title has to go.--Yellow Diamond (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edited) There is a consensus of two for "foreign influence in the Honduran general election, 2009" I think. Also the article has been almost completely rewritten since the POV fork rationales for deletion were given above. It contains a lot more meat and a lot more references that are not primarily concerned with HRC, but with Honduras. Those saying the article was a POV fork will need to reassess their evaluation now, in fairness, and perhaps participate in rendering the text even more NPOV. Best, SashiRolls (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean influence, right? "Intervention" is a much stronger term, meaning a much smaller article. Wnt (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do, I'm visiting too many pages and am getting confused. I've taken the liberty of changing it above, because yes, I mean (like you I think) influence not intervention. SashiRolls (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks skimpy but nice at this point and I'd support a merge to the parent article Honduran general election, 2009 per the above sentiment by George Ho. Sagecandor (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge in Honduran general election, 2009. The sources in the page don't appear to establish notability (WP:NOTE) for the topic. Additionally, there's POV fork related issues with it as well. Stickee (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is POV fork. Delete this page and merge any valuable content (I do not really see a lot) to other pages as suggested by Neutrality above. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deletethis POV fork. The use of "intervention" above tells me all I need to know about the POV purpose here. --Calton | Talk 09:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into the Honduran election article. There simply isn't enough here to warrant an article. Orser67 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV article built with a POV fine-tuning fork (see what I did there?). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copied content into the parent article. --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 17 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 delete. As obvious hoax. Claimed to be a professional footballer in a top national league, but Google yields zero hits. Sandstein 23:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piupio Durol

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

Suspected fake article. Leyo 20:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glaucus Research Group

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

Non-Notable company. Search on Google and Yahoo! only yields links to their own website which contain bias and bogus reports intended to benefit their own stock short sales and does not provide information in the interest of the public. YborCityJohn (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 2600:1006:B01D:A106:64E6:33E7:220D:7AAA (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is clearly spam. 108.188.71.6 (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability. 71.46.59.25 (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three comments by three IPs? TimothyJosephWood 21:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia currently does not have any rules in place that stipulates that an unregistered user (i.e. IPV4 or IPV6 addresses) cannot vote in AfDs and if there were most likely the AfD page would have protection. It has been my experience working on Wikipedia to say that it is not unusual that they do so. I researched the three addresses in question, the first (the IPV6) is based in Kansas and the two IPV4 are based in Florida, the first in Hillsborough County and the second in Polk County. YborCityJohn (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear uses only for a listing hence WP:NOT applies alone. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created the article and have no affiliation with the company. I personally agree that their tactics are deplorable, but I think they are notable given that their activities have been covered in multiple reputable business media sources (WSJ, Reuters, Bloomberg, etc. - see references in article). Their attack on Itochu was widely reported in Japanese business media. Sekicho (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And just to counter the allegations above, a Google search for "Glaucus Research" (at least for me) results in three different Bloomberg articles on the first page of results, followed by WSJ, Reuters, Japan Times and FT articles on the second page... Sekicho (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:PLUG. Also fails WP:GNG --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is sufficient consensus to delete plus we've reached the 7 days threshold for voting plus four extra days so could an Admin please close it and proceed with the next process of deleting the article. YborCityJohn (talk) 22:51, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Firmage

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

Article uses SPS and Primary sources such as press releases. The subject of the article has marginal notability, all of it stemming from an incident in which he claimed to have been visited by extra-terrestrials. Some notable events of over 20 years ago but nothing recent. Article needs better sources and what is notable today is not necessarily what was notable at the time the article was created. Also, the subject of the bio has used it and wikipedia to promote a scheme whereby has scams money from others under the guise that wikipedia bio makes him notable. See [2] - Tyler Riopelle, Chief Technician at Northwest Technologies, Every one at my company was lured into investing 5K apiece through a wire transfer to Utah in April of 2015. We appear to be completely scammed and have not heard anything back except to see a letter describing "Waterfall" which reads like a Ponzi scheme. We have all since filed reports with the FBI. I have not every heard until today reports about this being some free energy anti-gravity scam. Rather it was presented to us as a short term loan to be re-paid in 2 weeks maximum. A Wikipedia page exalting Joe Firmage as the technical creator of the internet and Microsoft was used to assure us that our money was going into trusted hands. There were at least four of us taken for almost 30 grand overnight. I expect more will soon surface. We are all based in Ashland Oregon. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fringe researcher without adequate secondary source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because person has had coverage in CNN, business week, com.com, bizjournals and some books. Person is notable enough for the article. Nominator is only using primary sources. I think he is the IP who was just blocked for BLP violations. --Bejan1 (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejan1: Would you make publicly known any vested or conflict of interest with the subject matter. There seems to be an association and it should be clearly specified so admins can assess your PoV. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Discussion is concerned with the notability of the subject of this article, not the motive of the nominator. You need to focus on the subject of the articles notability and their misuse of Wikipedia, and no other issue. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to review these sources, problem with them is that they are over 20 years ago, and there is nothing recent that makes the subject of this article notable. Almost all of them are regurgitation of press releases with the exception of the UFO related sources, which seem to be the majority of the sources. I also have run down many of these sources and they are either no longer online or are archived. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising alone and what the Keep comment above suggests are in fact PR advertising so if that's honestly all that exists, that's damning enough for this article. There are no compromises with advertisements and it's clear this is all it ever existed for. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SwisterTwister. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PLUG, Wikipedia is not for advertisement. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:54, 20 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 César Izturis#Personal. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Daniel Izturis

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

Appears to be a minor league player recently signed to the Mariners but apparently still on the farm team. Suggest merge to Cesar Izturis for not per WP:TOOSOON Montanabw^(talk) 19:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only and no merge as it's clear he's not notable in the established baseball notability and there's nothing else otherwise, including the fact there's no inherited notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all there is inherited notability. He's the son of one of the greatest defensive SS's of all time out of Venezuela in Cesar Izturis. Second the guy was signed for a 550K bonus, I don't know how much knowledge you guys have on international MLB signings but the fact that they're even releasing the amount of his bonus means he must be pretty good. Second this is all true information I perfectly understand if you wanted to delete information that may be false or biased in the article but the fact that you want to delete a perfectly true article is censorship. -Matthew Wisnefsky (talk) 2:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I think your claim is directly contradicted by WP:NOTINHERITED? The project has a low bar for notability, please read these starting at WP:N. Also please lay off the call of of "censorship", this is not that. ValarianB (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- @Matthew Wisnefsky: Please read WP:GNG. MLB tracks and reports all bonuses. 550K is more than many get, but is ultimately meaningless when you see how many bust. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mubogshu-Actually they do not release all of the bonuses, especially for the players from Veneuzuela like Cesar Daniel is because of all the kidnapping that has been going on of athletes. So the fact that they actually did release the bonus is impressive.-Matthew Wisnefsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Wisnefsky (talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to César Izturis#Personal. Not independently notable yet but the relevant information on him is mentioned in his father's article so a redirect is appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect does not reach project notability guides for baseball players or any others but is a possible search term. ValarianB (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•If you're going to redirect the article at least call him Cesar Daniel. His name is not just Daniel, I've changed it to Cesar Daniel many times on his fathers page but someone keeps on incorrectly changing it back.-Matthew Wisnefsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Wisnefsky (talk • contribs) 16:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•How about he be added to the list of Seattle Marineds minor leaguers like Kevin Maitan is for the Braves. And have a minor article there. -Matthew Wisnefsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Wisnefsky (talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to César Izturis#Personal. The son fails WP:GNG, but the father's article can mention the son. Some of these "minor league page" articles get bloated with entries that shouldn't be there. This player hasn't even made a professional debut. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Lepricavark (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to César Izturis#Personal. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:14, 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 Speedy deleted A7. Peridon (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Gabriel

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

Gabriel is not a notable musician. The article is entirely sourced to sources controlled by Gabriel. I found a short MTV blurb on him in my search [3], but that is about it. I don't think he fits our inclusion criteria for musicians. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: No claim of significance whatsoever. -IagoQnsi (talk) 19:37, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Uniforms, Patches, and Insignia of the US Armed Forces

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

The page seems to be advertising a to-be-released book, with no reliable sources other than the publisher's website. A couple of Facebook pages are the only other source of information. It has been linked from a few articles related to the subject matter of the book, but there is no great detail about the book's notability, especially as it is not released. UaineSean (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as it stands This is actually going to be a useful reference when it comes out, however the article itself is as noted above a little too advertisementy to be here in its current form. If better sources are provided and a rewrite achieved I would entertain the idea of shifting my vote. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia guidelines allow Not-yet-published books to have articles. Assess deletion once the book is published and reviews are available to link to to determine notability. Ehrentitle (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and assess notability once the book comes out seems to be the more standard order, right? Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion might have been appropriate if the page was created yesterday, however it's been standing for nine months, since April. It will be the singular published reference on this topic, and to call for deletion two weeks before publication I believe would be a bit counter-productive now as reviews will soon follow supporting it's notability. Wikipedia guidelines allow articles on Not-yet-published books in anticipation of the book being notable in its own right. It also meets the guidelines of having strong evidence that the book will be published, which includes the title of the book, ISBN and date of publication. Ehrentitle (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that is that we cannot guarantee that the book will get reviews and if it does, if they would be the type that would be considered independent, reliable sources on Wikipedia. That runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL, as I've seen books that should have received enough coverage to justify passing NBOOK - only for them to never gather that coverage. I'm not talking about niche, indie, or self-published books, but works put out by major authors that routinely end up on the NYT's bestseller list. There's just no guarantee there and at this point in time I don't see where you pass notability guidelines. I must also caution you that you must disclose your COI on Wikipedia. While searching for coverage for this book I found a forum post where someone with an identical username stated that they were one of the two authors. Your username is pretty unique, so it seems unlikely that this is a different person. Something like this poses a big WP:COI and absolutely must be disclosed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NBOOK as it's obviously WP:TOOSOON] to have an article on this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK, or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any reviews for this book, that btw can be available prior to release, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:31, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forever in Terror

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

Tagged for notability for 7 years the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND Theroadislong (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, this is exactly the materials we would've deleted in the last 2 years because it's quite clear this only ever existed as a listing hence WP:NOT applies alone. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I endorse the nomination. The subject does not pass WP:GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:55, 20 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 Ammeter. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ampere-meter

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

The SI-unit for pole strength is Weber (unit).

"However, the strength of a magnetic field is measured in teslas..." is wrong because one has to take H (which is measured in A/m) instead of B (measured in T).

The unit ampere*meter still exists, but the entire article would have to be rewritten and I don't know what the content should be. --Debenben (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I haven't sufficiently looked at the article to form an opinion on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 19:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 19:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - You're right. The pole strength unit that needs to multiply H to turn it into a force is indeed the Weber. Since writing this, I've always worked in Gaussian units anyway where it doesn't matter. This article is not great and it just represents some fascination I had with inverse square laws when my physics teacher told me about them. Connor Behan (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ammeter. We do have articles about some composite units (e.g. Metre per second squared) but this particular unit has nothing really noteworthy. On the other hand, that name is a fairly likely search term for "a device to measure current" (I thought this was the topic before opening the AfD). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Weber (unit)~~ Ammeter and merge what can be used from the text to Weber -- the actual SI unit this article is trying to define. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While the content of the article talks about something that would be measured in Weber, such a redirect from the title would be misleading, since a Weber is equivalent to kg⋅m²⋅s⁻²⋅A⁻¹ (and not A⋅m). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. I have changed my !vote agree with your proposed redirect. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:57, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boys'n Girl

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

Seemingly non notable manga. No Japanese article which is not encouraging considering their comparatively flexible approach. No European articles linked so if it has a license I can't see one. Searching in Japanese with minor skills just returns lots of retailers (not even lots of blogs which is odd) and searching in English gives the usual copyright infringing sites. Entry on ANN is minimal so I don't see any news items. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any potential to make it a useful article. Despite being an old series, it's not even listed in MADB [4]. Unless there's another title it's under? The author also lacks a Wikipedia page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC) updated 15:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. The series doesn't seem to be covered anywhere, and hasn't won any awards I can find. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:18, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Koh

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

Autobiography with many unsubstantiated claims sourced mainly from self-published media. Cabayi (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Besides being created by an editor with the username User:Billykoh, indicating WP:COI problems, the article has a few copyvio violations as well. CherylHew ✽ ✉ 17:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject is undoubtedly notable, although perhaps only as the CEO of Ocean Butterflies International. Whether we need a standalone article or we need to merge it into Ocean Butterflies International is the decision we need to make here. Some sources

CEO Billy Koh quits Ocean Butterflies 2014 , Straits Times
Billy Koh made JJ Lin a big Mandopop star 2015, Straits Times
Billboard 2003 very brief coverage in context of company.
Billboard 2001 Coverage by same author in previous article, largely quotes though

The subject is notable for forming a music company which produced stars like JJ Lin and Stefanie Sun. Whether we need to merge it into the company or keep it as a standalone article depends on the sources available. I don't have enough time right now to do an extensive archive search, but I suspect there may be enough available for a standalone article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On second thoughts due to copyvio. I just took a look at the copyvio link CherylHew provided. This is pretty bad and is gonna be hard to clean up, the article will lose all its history as well. This is ripe for a TNT at this point. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI, WP:COPYVIO], doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation Move games

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

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. The list is a fancruft shopping catalog for PS3 Move games, and is redundant of other PS3 game lists like List of PlayStation 3 games released on disc and List of PlayStation 3 disc games released for download. If shoppers need to find out if a game supports Move, they can check Category:PlayStation Move-compatible games or consult the retailer. The list also serves as another console war fan article with its Exclusive marketing column. Odie5533 (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOTCATALOG. Ajf773 (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - I've been cleaning up the parent article PlayStation Move in case something like this was proposed. I don't believe it needs its own article. It can either be added as a yes/no column on the main List of PlayStation 3 games list, or merged back into the PlayStation Move article. I have no preference really. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the nom kindly points out, there is already a category, so by WP:CLT, there is no real reason to delete. I don't see the conflict with other lists, either, and it's probably too big to merge into the main article. ansh 666 20:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too much data to put in the main article. If List of PlayStation 3 games released on disc and other relevant lists linked to at Lists of PlayStation 3 games were to have a column added for this there, then this link would no longer be necessary. Dream Focus 08:49, 15 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 18:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This data is good for history of PS3 Move gaming and also good lookout for game collectors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrdy (talk • contribs) 19:19, 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 03:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - This can easily be converted into a simple list within PlayStation Move, like the one at PlayStation Mouse, or converted to a yes/no column on List of PlayStation 3 games as Sergecross73 suggested. The other information on the list is completely redundant to List of PlayStation 3 games.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:01, 2 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unitus Seed Fund

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

Clear advertising in which both WP:NOT applies and the fact we make no compromises at all with such blatant consistency of advertising and company involvements especially when everything here is simply formatted as their own company guide, with their own published and republished advertising, and the history blatantly shows it especially since everything that exists in publications is simply their own advertising yet again. SwisterTwister talk 17:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (though certainly needs work). I agree that this article is self-promotional, but this organization seems notable: there's a New York Times article (cited already) that talks extensively about this company, and some cursory additional searches reveal a Forbes article about its founders and the fact that Bill Gates is an investor. That's just for starters. It'd take no more than 20 minutes to bring this article to a happier, more NPOV place. I'd be happy to help with that going forward, but it seems needless and counterproductive to delete. --Vivisel (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First the Forbes is clearly hosted one of their "independent journalist and freelancing" websites, and there's also no inherited notability from Bill Gates investing, or else we would have an article for every single company a major person invested in, which is unbelievable high considering that what their jobs involve. The NYT is still too close of a business listing interview and that says something since it attempts to covertly list its own financials and business specifics. The main concerns here are WP:NOT which is a policy. SwisterTwister talk 18:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see that re: the Forbes article? The author is a Forbes staff writer and per TFA, it appeared in the print edition. Maybe I'm just missing it... Vivisel (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Lauren Gensler is staff, not a freelancer. I don't know how SwisterTwister could get that so wrong? Stickee (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:ORG with significant (full article) coverage by Forbes (linked above) and the New York Times (in article). Stickee (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the Forbes "staff" listed now, but still, we've established as it is that Forbes is, with time goes, becoming heavier and heavier with company-controlled PR known as churnalism; then, there's still the fact this company is still best known for being involved with Bill himself; thus that's not automatic inherited notability. WP:NOT takes importance here, which is policy. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, such as [5], [6], [7], [8]. Also, the Forbes article is written by a staff writer, and is a reliable source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least ,the article needs to be trimmed of each of their list of relatively minor projects. That sort of information belongs on their web site. But the purpose of GNG is being subverted here, because when used for this sort of article, it simply turns us into an amplifier of their own publicity campaign. The art of PR is to get journalist to write about you. Then WP follows, and repeats the same PR. GNG is built on the naive assumption that journalists report the things that are important. I don't think it was every true, really, and its time we outgrew it. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lee (American football, born 1962)

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

Lee played college and then minor league pro football, without ever receiving wide notice. He is now a high school football coach. This is all a set of positions below the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, I had been watching this article since the start and it's quite clear no amounts of improvements will compensate for the sheer fact he's simply not notable for policy. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure of WP:GNG. The article asserts that Lee played major league pro football in the US in the USFL and NFL. However, I couldn't find an entry for him at pro-football-reference.com. That's indicative of the lack of verifiable information about him. —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:GNG. Created by WP:SPA. Article states he played in the USFL with Orlando Renegades in 1985 but he does not appear on the roster for the team. Also says he played with Tampa Bay Bandits in 1986, but Tampa Bay didn't play in 1986. He also isn't on their all time roster. CBS527^Talk 01:50, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garg Brahmin

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

Contested PROD by IP editor, although no reason given. No sources are provided on this page. I was unable to turn up any further reliable sources. The Brahmin page does not discuss this caste. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article totally lacking sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:VERIFY. A quick search for potential sources doesn't reveal anything particularly promising. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG as well as issues already mentioned Spiderone 14:45, 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. czar 07:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game exclusives (seventh generation)

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

List is a compilation of other lists with non-exclusive titles removed. We already have List of PlayStation 3 games released on disc which is well cited, while this list is not well cited and is a fan synthesis of lists. See previous deletion discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game exclusives (eighth generation). Having this article is redundant.

Note that there was a previous deletion discussion for this list back in 2009 with a result of no consensus. Odie5533 (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:IINFO. This is wall-to-wall fancruft OR. An article about the concept of console exclusivity might be ok but an unsourced list of games makes no sense. All of these lists are redundant to existing content on the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the consensus formed form the discussion of the the 8th gen AFD mentioned in the nomination, which is the same concept as this list applied to a different timeframe. Sergecross73 msg me 22:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination and rationale from the previous AFD on 8th generation exclusives. WP:NOTIINFO. Ajf773 (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears this article has been nominated once before, under a different title (which now redirects to here): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games exclusive to a seventh generation console
If I recall correctly, I created this list because the information was removed from the main lists. It looks like it has been appropriately slotted back in. Weak keep as I think some readers would prefer to see all exclusives on a single page. –xeno^talk 05:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the nomination did already link to the last AFD discussion... Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of reliable sources do give coverage to exclusives, and the exclusives are an important part of this multi-billion dollar industry, it what determines what console people will buy. Dream Focus 08:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the consensus developed at the 8th generation AfD is convincing, and I buy the WP:OR and WP:NOTIINFO concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per consensus established at eighth generation AfD; I can't see any reason to go against that Spiderone 17:22, 22 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. Lots of places choose different times to "celebrate" a Bacon Day, but there's no evidence that International Bacon Day actually exists as a single topic. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Bacon Day

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

Trivial. There may well be some local coverage of some local events, but this is not a thing. And look at the sourcing--it is atrocious. Couple of blogs and bacony websites, besides an article in the local press here and there. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found and added multiple news references, not all poor, and from 2014, 2015, and 2016, so the coverage was not a single blip. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep True, some of these references are trivial, but others seem pretty solid. Enough to meet the criteria. And besides, who doesn't love bacon? (Me doing my Homer Simpson voice: mmmmm...bacon...) ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the OP points out, a perfect example of why a few passing mentions in local media does not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources (obviously some of the sources, such as Republic of Bacon and BaconToday, are ludicrous). Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Love of bacon alone doth not a holiday make, perhaps unfortunately. The given sources are at best weak, at worst self-promotion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local media coverage sporadically does not make something notable for purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:35, 20 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Herbert

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

Reaffirming the WP:PROD which was removed by the creator without providing any additional information. A school principal without any notability. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete headmasters of secondary schools are not default notable, no other claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing genuine for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canine penis

This seems like an overly specialized article whose material largely overlaps with Canine anatomy and Canine reproduction. See WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Recommendation is that this page is deleted and the relevant materials merged into those two articles. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the content seems in line with encyclopedic material and wikipedia in particular. I have gone over the sources and they are either scholarly, academic or relavant. The problem with merging content is that merged content typically ends up being redundant at the merged article and may end up being deleted. Therefore I feel a vote to merge would be the equivalent of a delete and I see no reason whatsoever to delete this since the intricacies of the canine penis seems distinguished and specific enough to warrant its own article. Furthermore, a google search indicates that it is not a non-notable topic with tends of thousands of articles covering it. Negingxiilch78 (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair. I'll relist the article once to see if anyone else wishes to comment, but if not, we can leave as-is. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:57, 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 Clear Speedy Deletion case. User warned.. Alexf^(talk) 16:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Rajan Sakhale

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

I don't think this article necessarily establishes notability with sources that back said notability up. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 14:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did not meet the notability criteria in October and still does not meet the notability criteria in December. It's also a little WP:SOAPBOX-y Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 14:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:45, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu FR-50(B)

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

Non-notable product. Reviews published in places where reviews of such products are published, but doesn't have non-trivial coverage in reputable publications. Doesn't meet WP:GNG Mikeblas (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 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 18:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References barely establish existence but fall far short of demonstrating notability being little more than social media and forum posts. Having little more than simple listings and brief reviews shows that it has not had a lasting legacy on the ham field. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 2 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elgin Mount Pandim Hotel

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

WP:NOTAGUIDE KDS4444 (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no inherited notability from anything or anyone else and it's clear, regardless of "old claims" none of this amounts to actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G5. Created by a sock in violation of a block. Or if you want to keep this open to add a future G4, delete per SwisterTwister. --Majora (talk) 21:43, 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 speedy keep. The nomination rationale WP:CRYSTAL expressly allows for this page. Closing per WP:SKCRIT. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 in literature

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

wp:crystal KDS4444 (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL (I assume you actually read what your citing), which states - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". And seeing as it's nearly the middle of December 2016, by the time this goes through AfD's 7 days, then gets relisted, and relisted again (which is highly likely), it will be 2017. Merry Christmas. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is indeed verifiable that there will be literature in 2017. Besides, it's only a few weeks away, so there's really no harm in keeping it around. ansh 666 19:57, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Te Mas Mas (T++) The Bubble Tea Company

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

No indication of WP:GNG. WP:SPA making solely promotional pages. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletea non-notable small business in Costa Rica~~, created by an new PR-only account that I daresay may turn out to be a sockpuppet of an already blocked PR account~~. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Oh I see, the common link here is Sergio Masís-Obando. The SPA is spamming for him or is him.~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, none of the above. The common link is Sergio Masís-Obando because that is how I learned about the ventures. I am writing up about other Boston Startups that have made a footprint. It just so happens my first two articles were the easiest to write. Andresramon (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon[reply]
Wikipedia is not a platform or webhost for articles about "other Boston Startups"... unless they're notable. And most start ups likely aren't. So my concerns remain. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated at the other Afd, I've looked at the other two articles you've created and they appear to be fine. You began editing here with what seemed to me to be a highly suspect pattern of article creation, but I apologize if I've misjudged you. Still, WP:ORG is the standard by which to measure any planned new articles on "Boston area startups" or what have you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: In regards to this nomination particularly, I'd like to add that this article is about the first bubble tea shop in Costa Rica -- that is notable. To disregard the entry of one of the most famous beverages of all time into a developing country because there aren't 'notable' sources such as the NYT or Aljazeera is a bit unfair, wouldn't you agree? The nominator, Zackmann08 and yourself may think of this as less notable because the sources are foreign to you (I can only assume, I may be wrong). The sources are mostly in Spanish, and are from another, foreign country. I must add that Costa Rica doesn't boast a plethora of online news sites. The majority of the news in Costa Rica is indeed printed or screened on Television, not archived online. This doesn't mean T++ is not noteworthy. T++ did in fact appear multiple times on national television--this is not necessarily archived either (at least, I haven't been able to find it, yet). Remember, Costa Rica is a small country (4.872 million in 2013). To disregard this article on facts related to a developing country due to your perceptions on western standards would be, in my opinion, mistaken, and would run counter to Wikipedia's vocation of reaching a universal audience. Andresramon (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon[reply]
I can assure that as an editor I take systemic bias very seriously and have done a lot (I would say) over my years here to address it. More than you will ever know. That said, we are not going to give the first bubble tea shop in Costa Rica a free pass purely on that basis. It still needs to meet WP:ORG and for that matter, WP:AUD, too. For countless local restaurants and cafes garner purely local coverage and even that is not enough. This was a very curious choice by you for a first article -- and I daresay if you had taken some time to understand our policies, you would not have created it. And in case there's any confusion here, Spanish-language sources are perfectly acceptable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: I would like to write about things that I find interesting. Don't you find the first bubble tea shop in Costa Rica interesting? And even more interesting that the venture space in a foreign country starts to intersect with that of the US? It informs on globalization and the beauty of the new world. And I'm glad that Spanish-language sources are acceptable. To that end, I have to add that in the article I do not cite '"local coverage", as a matter of fact, I cite the two most prominent news sources in Costa Rica. The Tico Times has been around since the 1950s, and La Nación (Costa Rica) has been around since the 40s -- these although, national news sources, are internationally renown. I would reckon that's notable. In fact, according to the link you provided on Audience the guidelines say, "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The guidelines ask for at least one, the article in question provides at least 2.
- I'd also like to point to Teabean -- it's in the same industry as T++ except fame at the city and country level came for different reasons. Andresramon (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References one and two are very good. The rest are not of much help, though. And you can't add references to Facebook or Tripadviser as they are user-generated (did you read WP:RS like I suggested?) With two good references it just falls short, for me. Others may feel differently. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since WP:NOT policy in fact applies, and the "first" claims are equally unconvincing if policy suggests deletion instead, and this is in fact simply amounting to a business listing, not an encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let’s go through this, because above all, WIKI states that to measure an article for deletion, it must be evaluated based on logical arguments. The article was first nominated per WT:GNG and WT:SPA. (1) WT:SPA was crossed off because this was wrong and this aspect has now been logically removed as an argument against this article. (2) This article was nominated because the nominator believes WT:GNG to not be met. If we carefully read through the criteria/parameters within WT:GNG, it contains that there must be Significant Coverage –there are two national and internationally renowned articles which focus solely on the subject of the article. This meets wiki’s Significant Coverage because the sources ” [address] the topic directly and in detail”. Because of the nature of these sources they also meet wiki’s Reliable parameter and they are of secondary sources –good measure of notability (according to WT:GNG) and thus meet the Sources parameter, as well. In fact, this also meets the Independent of the subject parameter. I would deem that all opposition from these two initial arguments 'WT:GNG and WT:SPA has been logically countered. Next, (3) It was then brought by Shawn in Montreal that this article needs to meet WT:ORG and WT:AUD. Let’s start with WT:ORG. WIKI states A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." The subject meets significant coverage in secondary sources as aforementioned. The sources also meet the reliable parameter and the independent of the subject. We also realize quickly that this also meets Depth of Coverage because of the two main sources, the subject is the only focus of the articles. It seems the evidence stacks well against the proposed reasons for deletion. Next, WT:AUD was brought up as an argument against the article. As I have previously countered, the Audience parameter is also met. The guidelines say that, "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The article provides two national and internationally renowned sources. This meets the guideline of at least one and in fact provides two. @Shawn in Montreal:, your criteria is three. But, that seems to be a number coming from you. If we are to follow Wiki’s guidelines (especially those brought here, against the article in question), and maintain a completely logical and objective path---I have to seriously question why the same arguments, which have all been countered, are being used against the article. (5) @SwisterTwister:, you bring up WT:NOT, which I have already logically countered. On this end, there is nothing new. You then say that this is purely a business listing--- which is not true. A business listing if we go to Business directory, we find that a business listing, "may include the business name, addresses, telephone numbers, location, type of service or products the business provides, number of employees, the service region and any professional associations." Here, we read that a business listing contains simply facts. The article in question contains encyclopedic content that therefore does not make it a listing. In fact, I believe I had written some additional information which I withdrew because it felt like it may be misconstrued as "promotional". Right now, it feels that moving towards deletion is easier than thinking of an alternative for a clearly interesting, encyclopedic article. To this end, I encourage the more experienced users to propose an alternative to deletion. I believe this should be kept. Let’s remember that on the AfD page, it states, "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. " I have met all arguments logically on measurable evidence that stem from Wiki’s own policy guidelines. Andresramon (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon[reply]
You've misunderstood me: my preference for three is a reflection of WP:GNG, which calls for "multiple" reliable sources, of any kind. And right now there are only two WP:RS for this failed Costa Rican tea shop, and I for one remain convinced that it is non-notable from the point of view of an enclyopedia. Secondly, please don't bold comments for emphasis, per WP:AFDFORMAT. If you like, use italics. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is nothing "countering" to WP:NOT because it's actually policy and one of the importsnt policies here, while BASIC and GNG are not policies so they are not exchangeable. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry for bolding parts of text (I was trying to make it easier to read for you all and myself). But, again, @Shawn in Montreal: "multiple" doesn't necessarily mean more than two. As I quoted already, the guidelines ask for at least one. The article provides two. I cannot change your mind, as it seems you are determined. And I still fail to see how this is not encyclopedic. I've already shown that the article meets the guidelines for notability for all its parameters. At this juncture it seems like it is only opinion that is carrying your argument. You've only cited multiple from the guidelines as an argument. @SwisterTwister: When I wrote "counter" I meant to say that I "countered" your argument. To summarize, I used the exact same article, WT:NOT, you summoned, against your own argument. That is what I meant by "countered". ------I've used sound logic, the wikipedia policy, and guidelines --verbatim-- to demonstrate that this article should be kept. And yet, you continue as if my point by point deconstruction of your arguments was never made. I'd like to note for the readers that the nominator has nominated all of my pages for deletion. It is possible that this article will end up deleted--not because it doesn't meet wiki's parameters--but because I happened to choose to make pages on certain related subjects, which led to the suspicion of my intentions, and an opposition stacked against me even when I've used logic to defend the article incredibly well. Are there no other alternative solutions to this page, that I do believe meets notability? If this page doesn't meet notability, I'll resurface this page: Teabean --- how does this meet notability? The T++ article has way more encyclopedic content than Teabean. If the question is that I must expand the article to enhance it, then let that be said. Otherwise, I'm unconvinced why this should be deleted. Andresramon (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon[reply]
I'm not going to debate this at length. Multiple does mean more than two for me. As for Teabean I couldn't care less. See WP:OTHERCRAP. And if Teabean bothers you so much, take it to deletion. Goodbye and good luck, my efforts to assist you have reached an end, I'm sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WT:GNG and would enhance the encyclopedic content for Costa Rica related articles. As a monitor for Costa Rican articles, articles like these are lacking. Dweebing (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Dweebing— Dweebing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - per nom. I don't see notability here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no fixed number for the RSs that are needed--it depends on what they are and what they say. In this case, the two articles are just press releases, and any number of such don't justify an article. And the contents of this article is just PR also: look atthe number of unsourced adjectives of excellence. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - admirably earnest defence but topic is still far from notable, the minor sources listed notwithstanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:10, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. A. I Abdul Majeed Swalahi

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

In all three references given, subject is quoted— none of these articles is about him specifically, and being able to issue a fatwah does not necessarily make one notable. Article needs multiple references to significant coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources in order to be retained. KDS4444 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable academic, does not meet inclusion criteria for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing here for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF or anything close it. SwisterTwister talk 16:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable author and professor. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 20:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable autor and professor. Fails WP:PEOPLE

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. Consensus cannot be determined after two relists. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 23:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abhoynagar

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

Not sure whether it is a city, town, village or some other geographical region. Couldn't find anything substantial other than postal zip code. May fail at WP:NGEO. Hitro talk 20:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - peripheral Google references do not suffice to show notability. WP is not intended to just list random name references.--Rpclod (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are non-peripheral reliable sources that show that this topic passes WP:GEOLAND, nothing like "random name references". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:45, 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 01:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND as a "Populated, legally recognized place", it is Ward No. 7 of Agartala, a quick gsearch shows that it contains the Regional Institute of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology (could have its own wikiarticle?), Hindi Higher Secondary School, TRIPURA FOREST DEVELOPMENT & PLANTATION CORPORATION LIMITED - www.tripurainfo.com/Login/UpLoad/1548.pdf, btw here is a map showing it. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It exists and per WP:GEOLAND, it's notable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the article indicates what it is or why it is notable, much less that it is either populated or a legally recognized place.--Rpclod (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:43, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Donnellan

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

Generally individual notability in team sports is associated with playing in a fully professional league. KD falls short of that threshold. The league for which she will be playing hasn't yet begun (WP:CRYSTAL), nor will it be fully professional. Discussion about Women's AFL seems to show that the level of article creation should be at the team, not the player, level. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football#Notability of women's football. Cabayi (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. StAnselm (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Donnellan's notability has been established by extensive media coverage and her participation in the top tier exhibition series of her sport. Add a notability tag to the article if you want but it's only a matter of weeks before this league's players reach you standard of notability. Tigerman2612 (talk) 1:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Sufficient coverage for GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fremantle Football Club#AFL Women's team: I do think this article is a bit WP:TOOSOON as she hasn't played a match yet in the AFL Women's comp, the discussion as mentioned by the nominator did say that marquee players should meet notability once they play a match in the comp. The common practice for AFL players drafted who haven't debuted yet is to redirect to the current squad on the main page or the list of XX players article; as she's a marquee player she will meet notability once she plays a match, the precedent for these type of players (albeit in the men's comp) is to redirect before debuting. Flickerd (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of only 16 marquee players signed to the new comp (see here). I think that trying to combat the gender bias that exists in the traditional mainstream media and here as well requires some more lenient applications of the rules. And which part of new national league that's only months away from starting is "unverifiable speculation" that WP:CRYSTAL refers to? The common practice of redirecting is done for later and rookie picks, but rarely for top draft picks, which the marquee players represent. Everything in this article is verified by RS, but I accept that independence is questionable for most of the refs that cover her in detail, not just a mention, but the club & AFL websites claim to be independent, but few believe that. Applying the letter of the law for the sake of a few weeks/months delay achieves no benefit to anyone. The-Pope (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we "trying to combat the gender bias that exists in the traditional mainstream media"? That seems like righting great wrongs to me. St Anselm (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or just using the inherent discretion/judgement call that is found in terms like "significant coverage" to do a tiny thing to help address one of the most frequent criticisms of Wikipedia. The-Pope (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legally speaking AFL Media is indeed independent. Tigerman2612 (talk) 8:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Redirect - Refs in article presently are rubbish (non-independent - all from AFL.com or the club page), yet Gnews search shows plenty of non-trivial, independent hits (several from The West Australian). This is enough to satisfy GNG, and that's pretty much all that matters. Sport-specific guidelines requiring, for example, playing in a "fully professional league" are about the presumption of notability, ie, the presumption that sufficient sources should exist for a player of a certain ilk. KD doesn't need to rely on presumption - she has plenty of decent sources anyway. Any exclusion argument would have to rely on WP:NOT, which I don't think could be reasonably made. Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC) - EDIT: Following the comment from Aspirex below regarding usual practice at WP:AFL, best course of action would appear to be redirect to the club page for now. Assuming KD does indeed play a debut match, the page can easily be restored via a simple revert when that happens.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refs from The West Australia seem to rarely show up high in the google searches, probably because their website is hosted by Yahoo! The-Pope (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by independent media coverage. Presumption of notability will also soon be covered by participation in "major amateur league" as per WP:ATHLETE though is also WP:TOOSOON as she is yet to actually debut. Tigerman2612 (talk) 3:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep Notable, sufficient sources, and probably specifically historic for women's football. Aoziwe (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now In my view, the extent of coverage for uncapped AFLW marquee players has been on par with that of uncapped high-to-mid round AFL draft selections. The AFL project has always taken an absolutely hard line that such players do not get articles until the day they play their first game, regardless of the extent of coverage, and it is contingent on the project to apply its own norms consistently. I've seen many AFL draftee articles deleted for "TOOSOON" on many occasions to ensure this practice is adhered to. To accept a 'keep' decision for this article while satisfying WP:NOTTEMPORARY presupposes that Donnellan would still be forever notable even if she blew out her knee in pre-season training and retired without ever playing an AFLW game. Aspirex (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although the article isn't great, Donnellan meets WP:GNG, therefore the article should be kept (and improved). ColonialGrid (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly at the top level of her sport and meets the GNG in the absence of a female-specific guideline at WP:NAFL. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk)

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. Consensus cannot be determined after three relists (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 23:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reynaldo Dante

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

No claims of notability by WP:NACTOR: lots of films, but not notable ones (spot-checking, I can't find bluelinks for the filmography entries). Editors can't even agree on his birth/death dates, which suggests there are not in-depth independent-and-reliable sources about this person. DMacks (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is also how I had PRODed it; it was deprodded by a long-term disruptive sockdrawer. I've revived the PROD tag as standard for evasion. DMacks (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NACTOR. I removed PROD tag, as PROD is inapplicable once an article goes to AfD. Safiel (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note According to article history, article was PRODed and declined back in 2006, so article was ineligible for PROD anyhow. Safiel (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into the article history. DMacks (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything more than incident mentions of him anywhere. He could have been a very active minor character actor.Rogermx (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar problem with so many "oldie" Filipino actors. Sources are few and far in between as Philippine publications from that period are not digitized by Google. Regardless if they're only "incidental" mentions he satisfies WP:NACTOR. He is mentioned prominently as one of the first "greats" in Philippine cinema. The list of films he was in are all notable. He is in the starring/top-billing roles in almost all of them (usually paired with fellow-award winning actor Anita Linda). See surviving posters at [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] (the websites are blogs, but the posters/pages they publish are not). Lastly and most importantly, he won the Best Actor award from the Maria Clara Awards in 1951 for Kamay ni Satanas. Maria Clara is the first national award-giving body for Cinema in the Philippines. Here's a quote from an article in PEP:

The award-giving body's Best Actor was Reynaldo Dante for the movie Kamay ni Satanas (1950). Reynaldo was among the less known matinee idols of the 1930s before maturing as a dramatic actor in the 1940s. As part of the Philippine movies' early batch of matinee idols Reynaldo starred with 1930s hunk Leopoldo "The Great Profile" Salcedo, Domingo Principe, Teddy Belarmino, Ben Perez, Mat Ranillo and Jose Padilla Jr. in Magna East Productions' Hindi Kami Laos (1962).

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:42, 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. Notability has not been verified through reliable sources. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Harris

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

The article has one source, and that is to a website affiliated with his employer. My searches didn't show up anything on this Todd Harris, except a BYU alumni association page (which is probably not indepdent) and something from famousmormons.com, which is not fully reliable, and blog posts. Harris just does not seem to have been an announcer at a notable level. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harris must be doing something right because he was just re signed to a new multi year contract with NBC Sports and continues to add to his long list of sports he has covered. His versatility may be to his detriment. As soon as he is added to a sport and begins to excel he is pulled over to another sport or assignment. He is not flashy and known for a signature call or catchphrase, as is with so many of todays over the top announcers, but he seems to fade into the background of an event or show and lets the athletes be the story. He has learned well at the side of one of the all time greats in Keith Jackson. ^[1]Deadspin 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.3.71.11 (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sports Illustrated 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I recall the incident, alluded to in this press release, when Lloyd Carr snapped at Harris at halftime of a Michigan-Ohio State game. To me, serving as the sideline analyst of a Michigan-OSU game counts as being an announcer at a notable level. Harris has also done play-by-play for other college football games at the FBS level, and he announced the 2005 Indianapolis 500 on ABC. To me, it appears he has had a notable enough career to warrant keeping the article. Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. H. Barnes

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

No attempt made to improve article after tags added. I had to rename it just now to comply with standard naming convention. Canada has rarely been a first-class team so this may fail WP:NCRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Cricinfo link in the article he played in a first-class match for Canada in 1951, so technically passes the cricketing notability guideline. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the match. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check Wisden. Presumably, the 1952 printed volume. If Wisden says the match was first-class, he's in. If not, he's out, Narky Blert (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reason to doubt the reliability of Cricinfo and the Cricket Archive's claims that this was a first-class match? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this instance. But I have seen a Cricinfo entry where the alleged umpire had been dead for 20+ years. Narky Blert (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, every generally reliable publisher is capable of making the occasional mistake, but that is just as true of Wisden, who once owned Cricinfo and presumably hosted this information at that time, as anyone else. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:16, 30 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 15:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC as a first class player. No reason to doubt the reliably sourced info. St Anselm (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This raises similar issues to those which have been raised before - specifically, does passing WP:NCRIC mean that the subject of an article is by default notable. For me the FAQ at WP:ATH - which is the page NCRIC is on - answers this:

The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline....

Now, could we find significant, non-routine secondary coverage of PH Barnes - not of this match, but of Barnes? I don't know the answer to that, although I would suggest that it would be difficult to do so. There may be some stuff in local newspapers around the St Catherines area and/or in histories of either Canadian or Ontario cricket. If there was - and it was non-routine coverage about Barnes - then I think I would accept that the subject has enough notability and meets NCRIC as well.

As it is, I'm not at all certain that we would be able to source such information in "sufficient" time. I would probably lean towards delete as much as anything on the grounds of the FAQ suggesting quite clearly to me that simply because a player technically meets NCRIC it doesn't mean, per se, that they have notability, just that such notability mighe be presumed if sources are available. But I would certainly be willing to provide time to find sources and it might, in the meantime, be sensible to consider an article on the MCC tour to Canada in 1951 (along the lines of Marylebone Cricket Club cricket team in Bangladesh in 1980–81) in order to provide some kind of placeholder for what are probably going to be a limited number of dubious notability cases - the MCC team included at least two Test players and played a number of matches, although this was the only one CA categorises as anything other than miscellaneous Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC as a first-class player. Match is recorded in full in Wisden 1952 edition (pp901–2) with a note that it was accorded first-class status in November 1951. The reason we have such a clear line in NCRIC on cricket player notability is to avoid the kind of agonising above. Johnlp (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly not what the FAQ on WP:ATH says - my rationale above explains that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:34, 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 List of Brookside cast members. The community finds, that there is not currently enough evidence of this subject's notability to warrant a stand-alone article. (WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:BLP) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Chapman

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

Non notable actress, Can't find any evidence of notability, I only found this but other than that there's nothing source-wise, Her most notable role was in Brookside so it should probably be redirected there however I'll leave that up to the community, Anyway fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur she is a non-notable actress. Maybe just too soon. Quis separabit? 23:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ actually, Redirect to List of Brookside cast members. This actress just barely missed WP:NACTOR criterion 1. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't realize how big this show was (this was a British show that went from 1982 to 2003, and I am an American who is too young to be even a Millennial). I guess people could identify her from this series.--Mr. Guye (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Guye - I've heard of Brookside but have never seen it, From what I can gather it was a big thing (like EastEnders & Corrie), Anyway I have no objections to redirecting, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NACTOR. Not only was she a 10 year principal cast member of Brookside, but had multiple episode guest starring roles on Hollyoaks and Emmerdale. Redirecting to Brookside a performer who had notable roles in other shows would be nonsensical. --Oakshade (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being on Brookside is great however there's nothing at all on this BLP so with the greatest of respect keeping this would be nonsensical unless ofcourse anything substantial can be found. –Davey2010^Talk 15:30, 30 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 13:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A HighBeam Research search for <"Tiffany Chapman" Brookside> yields 82 hits. (See focused "find sources" links above.) Many of these are the expected namedrops, but more substantive content includes several substantive profiles from the Liverpool Echo [14] [15] as well as an article noting that as of 2015 she'd had the 5th-longest run of any actor on Brookside [16]. For the record I'll also note, with the requisite caution, a couple of pieces from the Mirror [17][18]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Brookside cast members At the moment, I don't see enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Redirecting to the subject's best known role seems to be sensible solution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:13, 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. No evidence of this subject's notability has been presented during this discussion, this article is therefore found to fail the requirements of WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navaikulam Juma Masjid

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

I am not entirely certain what this article is about. Google Books turned up nothing at all, and a regular Google search turned up Wikimapia and something about a bank. No in-depth coverage to speak of. I don't think the creator made the thing up, but I can find no evidence to support even a weak notability claim and the article has no citations to help me find any. KDS4444 (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have as yet no opinion about keeping or deleting, but I'll just point out that a masjid is a mosque, and a juma masjid is something on the lines of a main mosque or central mosque of a town, in this case Navaikulam. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Navaikulam: some googling around leads me to believe that the article is describing this mosque, located at 8°46′16″N 76°47′19″E / 8.7711°N 76.7887°E / 8.7711; 76.7887. However, considering the lack of sources and way of writing, I am inclined to turn this into a simple redirect. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I just fixed the link in Kaduvayil palli to that image, I think they are seperate mosques. I'm sure there is a mosque in Navaikulam, but I'm not sure it meats the notability guidelines based on what is written and what I've found.Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from being a WP:NOTADVERT violation, I'm also not seeing the WP:GNG passed here. There isn't a specific notability guideline for houses of worship as far as I know, and in the absence of some sort of special case, this subject seems to fail the most basic threshold guideline for inclusion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is List of mosques in Kerala, currently a poor list covering only a small fraction of the mosques in Kerala that have separate Wikipedia articles, such as this one (which it does not yet cover). In general it is a good Alternative To Deletion to merge and redirect an article to a list-article covering the item. Here the short article has nothing that can't be covered in a list-article item. I don't think a separate AFD is necessary for each of the many other short mosque articles which could be merged to the list-article, too. It would be better for development of Wikipedia in this area to direct editors' attention to developing the list-article, instead of continuing to start separate articles and having (always-negative) AFD experiences. --do ncr am 23:13, 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 no consensus. Clearly no agreement here on whether this is a topic that merits a standalone article or whether it would be better covered elsewhere. Arguments are made that this is WP:SYNTH but there is no real agreement on whether that is the case. It is disappointing that this discussion seems to have fallen around partisan lines, and just a friendly reminder that using unnecessary juvenile terms like "butthurt" in an AFD may result in an "Afdexit" for the offending user. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom

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

I really do noy think that this is a notable topic. All the references seem to date from shortly after the referendum, WP:NOTNEWS and I do not believe that there is any serious ongoing debate whatsoever concerning this idea. I listen to a lot of talk radio and have not heard any mention of this, even in comedy programs. TheLongTone (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a brief mention into Brexit after removing a pointless list of pro/contra people. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said in the prod rationale, this seems to be quite heavy on WP:SYNTH. Not sure why an AfD was needed when the prod was still in place though? Number 5 7 16:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prods often disappear without a murmurTheLongTone (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a concise version of the same to Brexit...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it should find a mention in Brexit...? Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, topic is not notable, and the article consists of either WP:SYNTH or WP:OR depending on how you read it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, off to a bad start here guys, I have spent the evening augmenting and improving. Perhaps you could do the same? Rather than attempting to mindlessly censor to shelter your fragile, personal political persuasion - with no evidence whatsoever to back it up or address the body of text. I am in the process of adding to people like Boris Johnson's (for) and David Cameron's (against) pages (as well as Andrea Leadsom, John Oliver, Douglas Carswell etc. etc.) to mention their opinions and/or statements on a British 'Independence Day'. I think if it's notable enough for them, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. Unless your whimsical internet reality is more real than elite-level politics and journalism? Bear in mind the UK Government have officially debated the topic, at tax payer's expense. Whether it's trending in the supposed current 'talk radio' isn't actually a metric of a page's viability on Wikipedia. Nor is which way the wind is blowing or how you 'feel'. 'Support' and 'Opposition' is catered for, allowing a neutral and factual representation of dozens of statements, speeches, columns and articles on the topic. This page is about the debate itself (statements of opinion, factually cited and proven by world-renowned politicians and columnists from impeccable sources), not the actual existence of the national holiday. Where is the proof that these statements didn't happen, aren't viable, aren't relevant to the title and aren't about the topic at hand? None so far. Mdmadden (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC) — Mdmadden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Firstly, regarding your snippy comments, WP:AGF. The reason for nominating this for deletion is that there is no such debate. Or certainly not so one would notice. I suspect you are the one with a political horse in the race, a blief only partly down to the fact that this article and edits on the topic are your only contributions to Wikipedia.TheLongTone (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reasons as above. As for the list of supporters/opponents, merely mentioning 'Independence Day' in a statement, usually as campaign/political rhetoric, isn't the same as taking a firm position as to whether there should be a national holiday observed every year, which account for very few of the people who have been listed. Furthermore, the fact that most of this article mostly consists of people who are allegedly supporters or opponents of the topic suggests that the topic isn't particularly substantive or notable. In addition to Brexit, suggest it might also be better mentioned in British National Day. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Seems completely reasonable to me to have this as its own article. CyboDuck (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC) — CyboDuck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, wholly don't think we need a national holiday of a British Independence Day. However I see the petition gained over 21,000 signatories to be debated by the UK's MPs. The MP Robin Walker said it would be too expensive and had competition from St George's Day - so at least it's been officially discussed by government with even budget requirements... I'm sure this will resurface in 2017 when we get to anniversary of referendum too. But think it has to STAY/KEEP, too many MPs and MEPs have commented on it for 23 June to be celebrated/considered/recognized as 'Independence Day' and the public getting the government to respond for national holiday is significant enough. I might find some time to improve it - I will add some more people that have publicly opposed the national holiday suggestion. Slashmire (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best Merge. Having standalone articles on the basis of something having been debated in parliament would keep us busy with several new article a day. This was all a, rather dim, flash in the pan. Mdmadden's assertion that deletion is reliant on proof that the topic is not notable has matters rather the wrong way round. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I've provided around 30 sources, on top of the Parliamentary debate, I have quoted literally some of the most notable, modern UK-politicians like Boris Johnson (Foreign Secretary), David Cameron (former Prime Minister), Nigel Farage (former UKIP leader), Andrea Leadsom (2016 Conservative leader final candidate) and so many more, directly addressing and debating the issue. You have provided nothing as a rebuttal. The onus is on you to credibly produce reasoned evidence against the inclusive 'for and against' debate on this issue existing, or once existing, at a viably notable level, which you have failed to do. I have proved the existence of direct quotes, comments, support and opposition. Your rebuttal is; "flash in the pan". A very unscientific and weak thesis. Why the obsession with removing a factually discussed recourse on an issue, that's taking a few Kilobytes space on the Wikipedia, I wonder? ~~Keep~~ Mdmadden (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:SYNTHesis of a long ragbag of quotes in varying circumstances and contexts is not the same as reliable sources referring to an actual significant debate. At best this is worthy of a couple of sentences at Brexit. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking back at this debate - I don't think on the 1 hand we can lament a proper/focused Parliaments debate by MPs on the issue because of the successful petition, and then also lament that there are other quotes on it in varying circumstances and contexts ETC - I think this might actually support the page (INCL. foreign politicians, USA, ETC) I think it's fanciful this will ever be a national holdiday but I can see MPs/MEPs who've spoken out in support AND opposition of it. Think it's got to STAY/KEEP, especially as I think there is more to add to opposition section eventually! Slashmire (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how lamentation of anything figures in this discussion. The implication seems to be that other participants here are taking sides in the supposed debate of the subject of the article, rather than neutrally discussing its notable existence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry thought you said before about standalone articles for Parliament debates being problematic to you but then also were worried about all the other quotes from lots of different circumstances/contexts (like foreign politicians/newspapers/blogs ETC) - I actually thought that might actually help with its notability (DIFF/VARIED sources ETC).. I just added a The Guardian Observer article to opposition section that I found, I'm sure there's more opposition debate out there.. Slashmire (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, please stop projecting lamentation and worry upon me and just stick with what I've said. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have struck the second vote by MdMadden. Feel free to make more comments but don't double "vote". Cowlibob (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the issue of an Independence Day as a result of leaving the European Union has been discussed and reported in political circles from those on both sides and the page represents both opinions. I would rather have this page showing the opinions of those for and against rather than it being hijacked by one side in news outlets. Stevo1000 (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an issue that was heavily discussed in the UK before and after the referendum. As previously stated, it is notable for a summary of both sides the debate to be present on Wikipedia. --RaviC (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heaqvily discussed my curvy pink butt. Understandably nobody was talking about this before the referendum; ubderstandably only a few hardline arses are talking about it after.TheLongTone (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or briefly merge to Brexit. Is part of that issue, WP:NOTNEWS applies. Sandstein 13:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well about 1/2 people don't agree with that. There's certainly not a consensus. AfD was put on here prematurely in my opinion (and as others have said) as many say "or merge" after vote. Clearly the most ethical/right thing to do was put an IMPROVE notice above and encourage building prose on the article - not a hasty AfD. The sources and types of people quoted are legitimate, the Parliaments debate happened as well.... isn't that the most credible place in the UK for debating? The debate also has varied proven contexts/evidences FOR/AGAINST (as many on here agree), so why delete the home for this debate? Slashmire (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, is this article meant to be about the (non-notable) parliamentary debate or the non-existant public debate??? Really, this should be merged to Crass brexit triumphalism before the hard reality kicks in TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you do have your "political horse" in the race, after all. Numerous people disagree with you, so amp up the rhetoric to mock and pigeon hole other people. Ah so; it's "non-notable" because you said so and it's "non-existent" because you said so. Never mind all the references. You claim it's "Crass brexit triumphalism" as though that means the debate article can't exist because of it, as though the crassness on the "Support" side removes it from existence; that crassness cancels out elite-level politicians remarks, televised debates, Parliamentary debates. In what world does that happen? Equally, does the "Opposition" sides' liberal scathing cancel out David Cameron's or John Oliver's opposition? Remove it from existence, because others might not like that publicly expressed viewpoint? Also, referring to your "pink curvy" anatomy to RaviC above, just because they disagree with you - not especially helpful to a fair discussion either. You've made it clear you're on the side of "Opposition" - that doesn't mean the debate doesn't, or indeed hasn't, existed at viably notable level. Sorry, I think you AfD'd seemingly too quickly, flimsily and, clearly now, rather based on your political opposition rather than logic, and I think the split consensus proves that. Mdmadden (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. I afd'd this because there is no public debate about thids catastrophically stupid and divisive idea.TheLongTone (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe this is a thing, it might be worth a small mention in the Brexit article if it can be substantiated. But in my view it is just a bunch of soundbites with no constitutional or legal substance to it. Shritwod (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belief is not a metric for Wikipedia articles and their viability. It has been substantiated already, in it's own article. It's best to read the article and it's cited references first before any commenting. Constitutional and legal substance is not a metric for whether an article is notably viable. Thank you. Mdmadden (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If it's being considered for parliamentary discussion, I don't see how it's not relevant, whether you agree with Brexiters or not. That being said, if the resulting parliamentary discussion results in little uproar or external discussion, I'd support a merger to the Brexit page. --WhyIsItWereHere22 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, present tense, it is not. To the extent it was ever any sort of live issue (not much) it certainly isn't any more. Merger's fine though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected.--WhyIsItWereHere22 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the input. Present tense is not required for notable viability of an article. Thank you. Mdmadden (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Logic against seems fairly weak and politically-charged. See TheLongTone's comment, it's clear there's a lot of butthurt behind this motion. SteelMariner^Talk 16:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The logic against it is just logic, the article itself seems to be a case of WP:SYNTH at the very least to push a political point that also smacks of WP:FRINGE. Shritwod (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how something that has been discussed by mainstream politicians is "fringe". --WhyIsItWereHere22 (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, mainstream politicians involvement and then labeling as "fringe" is an example of cognitive dissonance with this issue. As is the idea that there is a "political point" being pushed. Both "Support" and "Opposition" is, or has been, pushed by mainstream commentators, politicians and media. This article documents them and provides both viewpoints, plus a Parliamentary debate explicitly on the national holiday request. Mdmadden (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On re-reading this discussion and the article, it appears that it is based on even flimsier grounds than I had thought. Both the article title and my reading of the posts above implied to me that a major aspect of the supposed notability of this topic was an actual parliamentary debate held on the matter of a public holiday. That itself would not be sufficient grounds for notability but on re-reading the article and Hansard, there seems not to have been any such debate. There was a discussion to consider six public on-line petitions relating to the UK’s exit from the European Union,^[1] held in the Grand Committee Chamber of Westminster Hall, not the main chamber, one of which called for an Independence Day. It was a consideration of the petitions, not a debate of their proposals and certainly could not be characterised as a parliamentary debate about Independence Day. The government responded negatively. (Incidentally, to be considered for parliamentary time, a petition should reach over 100,000, this one having reaching over 20,000.) Aside from this parliamentary footnote, the article is just a synthesised list of disparate quotes from people touching on the aspect of a public holiday, also largely talking in a much wider context. None of this is a tangible debate. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant strawman fallacy, admirable as it may be. The viability of the article does not rely on which chamber the tax-payer-funded MPs discussed the issue (at the public's request). Nor does the word "debate" in the title explicitly have to refer to a Parliamentary debate. Nor does the article rely solely on the debate of the petition, even with a spurious claim that is wasn't debated, subjectively or technically speaking. In fact, the Government's official statement on that petition is: "Parliament debated this topic. This topic was debated on 17 October 2016" As seen on UK Parliament petition: 123324.

More widely, Boris Johnson claimed about the 23 June; "I believe that this Thursday can be our country's Independence Day" in the BBC's own 'The Great Debate'.^[2] This was a public debate, at Wembley Arena, watched by millions of British voters. Then-Prime-Minister, David Cameron was explicitly questioned on Johnson's claim, who said "the idea that our country isn’t independent is nonsense. This whole debate demonstrates our sovereignty." These examples of the wider debate, partially on a British Independence Day, are catered for in "Support" and "Opposition" sections of the article. Those 'fringe' politicians Boris Johnson and David Cameron with their "disparate" and "wide" discussion on the issue; a wonderfully hair-splitting and artificial condition of article viability - whatever next. Also, perhaps someone should let these MPs know that "None of this is a tangible debate":

Robin Walker MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, claimed that "tempting though that might be, I think the idea of an independence day would face fierce competition from the likes of St George's Day, Trafalgar Day and many more. It's very hard to commit to June 23 over its many rivals. Unfortunately it's just too costly."^[3]
Patrick Grady MP, claimed that "of the 21,292 signatories to the petition that states that '23 June should be designated as Independence Day, and celebrated annually', two were residents of my constituency." Grady has been MP for Glasgow North since 2015. He further stated that "in years to come, 23 June will not be a day for celebration. It may indeed end up as a day of deep regret", and that "I sometimes wonder if I have woken up in a parallel universe and the independence day referred to is the day of Scotland becoming independent".^[4]

Furthermore, "The government responded negatively" in fact supports the viability of the article (and is pointedly mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article itself); it proves the executive branch of government has acknowledged the desire, from some quarters, for an Independence Day national holiday on 23 June and has, for the time bring, rejected it, explicitly taking loss of revenue and budget concerns into account. Here's another MP's reaction to that government response:

Nigel Evans MP, in October 2016 after the government announcement on a 23 June national holiday, stated; "What a shame the government has made this decision, this is an absolute belcher of an idea. This is the day to celebrate that we voted to make 100 per cent of our laws in the UK." He provided a further suggestion that "if its too expensive then why don't we swap it for one of those summer bank holidays in August and have our day of celebration. If it worked for the American's, why not us?"^[5]

Do you mean 'belter' Or is this a frank admission that this is all malodorous guff????TheLongTone (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all-due respect, unsupported declarations that concepts aren't "tangible", or simply don't exist on one's 'say-so', have no standing next to elected MPs and the highest-level, most mainstream politicians' comments, declarations, debates or responses on the issue both colloquially and explicitly concerning a national holiday - both for and against. Mdmadden (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So a number of debates and pronouncements which are about Brexit broadly, in general, where a detail mentioned within them is the idea of Independence Day? That does not make them debates about Independence Day, any more than they are specifically about any of the mutltitude of other potential aspects of Brexit people have touched on. Are we to cook up supposed stand-alone "Debate over post-Brexit Fisheries Policy" or "Debate over Erasmus scholarships in the light of Brexit" articles - you'd be able to list a similar number of cherry-picked quotes where these issues have been touched upon. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I address the questions in artificial isolation from the petition, Parliamentary debate, Government response and separate stand-alone calls from several mainstream politicians explicitly for a national holiday? Your concession on the Parliamentary debate issue you raised is fine, but if you want to then jump to exclusively examining the wider mainstream references in isolation; I would suggest that you'd be better off editing and improving the article itself. If the discussion has moved onto that already, we're essentially in indirect agreement that the main thrust stands.Mdmadden (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?! Why would you do that? It wouldn't alter the fact that this is synthesised list of disparate remarks on one of many aspects of a much broader topic, made to look like a coherent "debate" on this aspect exists. Specify my "concession" please - I'm puzzled. Tinkering with an article whose basis is spurious is futile; this would not be a fruitful use of my time, or anyone else's. Where is there the merest hint that I believe the article's existence is vindicated? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was your intervention above (starting Comment) about how this subject had not been debated, and with an irrelevant over-importance projected about which chamber MPs debated it in. Which was immediately refuted as a strawman and proven to be a false statement. Literally, the government disagrees with you. You then went on to abandon that topic completely and focus solely on "wider" comments in isolation, as though this somehow evolved the debate. That's quite demonstrably a concession and abandonment of your argument. Thanks. Mdmadden (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thank you not to make false statements about my having conceded a point which I have not. You disagreeing with someone, even if you believe your supposed line of logic, does not mean you can just pronounce they now agree with you. That is flagrantly underhand. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreting your concession of a point is not a false statement. Saying that the petition wasn't debated by Parliament/MPs is a false statement. If you haven't conceded on that specific point, I look forward to your response on it. Thanks. Mdmadden (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The parliamentary debate is an irrelevance. (I can't be arsed to trawl thu hansard, but I would be very surprised if there was any debate of substance). What the article claims to be about is a public debate on the topic... which as you well know is nonexistent. Not only do I read newspapers: I do latex gloves and skim the Daily Mail and The Sun'. The article is a sorry farce anyway, a list of people who have said something on the subject of Brexodus. (I note that Uncle Tom Cobley hasn't made the cut yet)TheLongTone (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops , I didn't see the Hansard link below. Couldn't see anything but a scant mention of the 'independace day' nonsense.TheLongTone (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mdmadden, you don't seem to be able to accept that people don't agree with you. I would suggest that you live with it. Debating the points of the AfD is one thing, but you are coming very close to resorting to ad hominem attacks. Perhaps I can suggest that you read WP:ADHOM? Shritwod (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He said, starting a random, unsourced accusation on another user. "Very close to"? I don't buy into your "belief" system, as I said before. Prefer facts and evidence. Provide some if you wish, or carry on as before, your choice entirely. Mdmadden (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you don't seem to have been able to come up with any facts of evidence supporting your assertions that this "Independence Day" is anything more than a collection of soundbites amounting to nothing more than hyberbole. Apart from a brief flurry of news items that really coincided with the release of a movie of a similar name, I completely fail to find any evidence of sustained debate about this issue anywhere at all, not in the news, not in social media. Although I am impressed at your tenacity on providing a list of quotes from two apparent sides, I do not believe that in any way they indicate that there's a real debate at all. Shritwod (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shritwod, you seem to be just repeating sentences with zero evidence to back them up. I DON'T agree with the "Independence Day" national holidays either but why are you ignoring all the main newspapers and news sites references AND the Parliaments debate (and as others say) "mainstream" politicians who have talked about it? Why does the debate HAVE to be "sustained"? When, everyday? This clearly will be raised again and again. It has been debated at NEARLY the highest level you can officially debate something in Great Britain. What's wrong with that? Who said those were the rules that you're claiming? If we change the article name to Calls for a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom is that fine? or "Support and Opposition for a British... etc."? Why do you think you think CyboDuck, Stevo1000, Mdmadden, RaviC, WhyIsItWereHere22 and SteelMariner disagree with you? You don't seem able to accept people disagree with you perhaps. Come up with some logical evidence against the credible cited sources rather than your own "soundbites" with nothing to back them up. Slashmire (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom, or better List of thereof would at least be a less inaccurate description of what we have here but are we really here to produce articles that just consist of lists of mentions of something?

The important distinction about the sources is that they just support that a thing has been mentioned several times, each in a context where lots of other things were mentioned. They do not refer to and do not support that there has been a debate regarding "thing" and to make a conclusion that there is one by tying these sources together to say something that they do not individually say is to advance WP:SYNTH. Neither is a debate considering a petition about "thing" (amongst several others) a debate about "thing". Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the nub of it - it is not a "thing" at all. It doesn't matter whether I agree with it or not, if it were a "thing" then a good NPOV Wikipedia article would be useful. But this article appears to exist to attempt to give the concept notability, when in fact it has no such thing. Looking at both Google News and Twitter as a couple of good ways to see if there has been a debate about it, I find nothing of consequence. Shritwod (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-10-17/debates/0D10F53C-7241-46AC-88CD-BD91964FADE2/UKExitFromTheEuropeanUnion
^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36593120
^ "Turns out there are 'no current plans' for a British independence day on June 23". Aol. 17 October 2016.
^ "UK Exit from the European Union — [Phil Wilson in the Chair]". TheyWorkForYou. 17 October 2016.
^ "Tory MP calls for 'Independence Day' Brexit bank holiday". The Telegraph. 25 October 2016.

I think its high time we close this discussion as no consensus and start another one after the dust settles. –– Rameshnta909 (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AGREED - clearly enough people back the references here. We can't just un-exist this because people don't agree with it politically - mainstream examples of for AND against is there for all to see. Slashmire (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as only best fitting clearly since this was itself still only a one-time event, but at that then only something it's going to be itself: A debate. There's clear connections to Brexit hence best suited there; both Delete and Keep thinly concur this is not both independently notable and currently improvable. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No don't agree with that. In fact, I put a couple of hours into improving it yesterday. Now we have a better split of general opening detailed description, Parliaments debate, specific notable calls for national holiday, and separate notable wide/general references to British Independence Day in all forms of media. Let's KEEP evolving/improving. Slashmire (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked through your recent changes in detail but the immediate aspect that leapt out was the subsection title misrepresentation of a debate on petitions as a debate on Independence Day (the result of which was that the topic is not to be allocated a debate). This goes past the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH aspects into outright untruth. Banging on about supposed references is neither here nor there if they do not support the POV that the article advances. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate further, per the categories on the government web site regarding the way e-petitions have been dealt with, this one is one of the many which "got a response from government" as opposed to the comparatively few which "were debated in the House of Commons"/"Petitions debated in Parliament". (Apparently the government website is blacklisted here, so I've had to remove the link from this post!) Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mutt Lunker, I'm afraid you're unnecessarily conflating terminology and again, drawing the same absolutely irrelevant straw-man distinction between which chamber MPs debated in. The petition was debated by Parliament. That is a fact. The government statement is: "Parliament debated this topic. This topic was debated on 17 October 2016" - UK Parliament, Petition No.123324.^[1]

My very point is that the petition was debated in parliament. The petition. And the conclusion of this debate, on the petition, rejected the issue therein being given a debate. Wording this to imply a debate on Independence Day was granted is false. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This part seems to be ignored (for obvious reasons): The government statement is: "Parliament debated this topic. This topic was debated on 17 October 2016" - UK Parliament, Petition No.123324. You claim MPs "rejected the issue" via " a debate". So what "issue" was debated? Please provide sources Mdmadden (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand, the petition is the vehicle for delivering the "topic" to Parliament for debate. The government asserts: "This topic was debated". What is the topic? An Independence Day national holiday in the United Kingdom. There is video footage evidence of Members of Parliament officially debating that topic in Westminster Hall, that you can readily refer to, as well as the Hansard transcript you provided previously. As Robin Walker MP said in the debate on 17 October 2016: "We have already enjoyed a number of excellent debates in both this Chamber and the main Chamber."

Please provide your source (and a direct quote for ease of searching, if possible) of the result being that: "the topic is not to be allocated a debate." Major news outlets, such as BBC and Yahoo! News have reported the petition and topic as debated by MPs and debated by Parliament.^[2]^[3] I have also provided MPs discussing the topic in Parliament both in this discussion page and in the article. All this, on top of the government's own position that "Parliament debated this topic". So it's very intriguing as to what source you are drawing your opposite conclusion to the UK executive's and legislative's position on this. Mdmadden (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very minor talking point within the larger Brexit debate. Here are Politico: [19]], and that's really all it amounted to, handful of op-eds, a handful of speeches. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this entire debate seems entirely politicized. With that in mind, I'd say let's leave it with appropriate tags in place, and let interested editors like Mdmadden take a crack at the POV issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karunamon (talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a well-sourced article, and the topic appears to be notable given the range of high-publicity figures who have commented on it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This certainly warrants mention in Brexit as a relatively minor aspect of that, but it doesn't meet the standard necessary to stand alone as a separate article topic in its own right — the fact that we have to invent an implausible and overly prolix title for it, because a standard name doesn't actually exist, demonstrates that right on its face, as does the fact that the content here consists very predominantly of "what people tweeted about it" rather than substantive content. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 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 speedy delete (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement) by David Gerard

Papa's Pizzeria

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

Non-notable video game. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As non-notable. The only source I could find using WP:VG/RS's custom google search of reliable video game sources was Wired. Note when searching for sources that there is a similarly named unrelated game "Papa's Pizzeria to Go!" (Related to the Papa John's pizza chain) that came out after 2010. -- ferret (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mass spam. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 13:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo and along with the others, didn't meet WP:NVG before and still doesn't meet it now. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 13:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete not-notable; promotion - KylieTastic (talk) 22:12, 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 speedy delete (multiple reasons: G11, G12) by Jimfbleak

Papa Louie 3

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

Non-notable video game. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, CSD G11/G12. Unable to find a single reliable source with WP:VG/RS's custom google search for VG RS's. The only hits are basic directory listings. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo and along with the others, didn't meet WP:NVG before and still doesn't meet it now. Maybe we can put all these together under one discussion? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 13:58, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Pipe Hustle

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

Does not demonstrate independent notability from FIRST Tech Challenge. All sources are affiliated with the organization that ran the event, or routine coverage of the event - failing the general notability guideline or the guideline for events. Appable (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are many articles on the same annual competitions that also have only affiliated or routine sources, and therefore the outcome for their deletion would be closely related to the outcome for the first article, I am also nominating the following articles for deletion:

Finally, as a disclosure, I have participated in some of these FIRST Tech Challenge events in the past. Appable (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Appable (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'd argue that these could be treated as WP:NSEASONS, but they'd need to list podiums. Did VEX/Tech challenge actually do placed winners, or was that only FRC? -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 18:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are placed winners for FTC during the world championships - those could be included in the article, though I do not believe that this would satisfy current notability policies.

I hadn't thought about NSEASONS, actually. However, upon reviewing the guideline, I believe that these articles do not satisfy the criteria. This can be shown by surveying the articles listed in this nomination - the seasons certainly do not currently contain "well-sourced prose", and there aren't any available third-party and non-trivial sources that discuss an individual season or team participating in FIRST Tech Challenge. Thus, this falls under the NSEASONS statement that articles should "be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." Appable (talk) 21:14, 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 01:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep at least some of these have coverage in reliable sources. Others are difficult to search for given the name is pretty common. But articles like [20] are pretty common (There are about 21 such sources over a wide geographic area including Europe).Hobit (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 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. Sandstein 12:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voluptuous Panic

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

PROD was removed by author without explanation. Fails WP:NMUSIC. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 07:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The entry fulfills at least a couple criteria of WP:MUSBIO. DeVault’s work with the Icicles meets MUSBIO#7, in that she is a prominent representative of a notable style (notably indie pop), and her work with Voluptuous Panic is an outgrowth that work. Bowe and DeVault’s soundtrack work for the documentary “The Death of an Imam” fulfills MUSICBIO#10 (“Has performed music for a work of media that is notable”), given that the film was nominated for an Emmy and won a top award at the BEA's film festival. Missjastersgarden (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 08:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 08:01, 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 01:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The WP:GNG definitely isn't met (too many non-independent sources, for one thing) but they seem to squeak past WP:MUSICBIO #6. I say "squeak" because the sources for both members are week, but there seems to be enough out there to demonstrate bare minimum notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 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. Mostly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Could be restored at some point in the future if better sources appear. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karissa Schweizer

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

unremarkable athlete does not come anywhere near to close to criteria WP:NTRACK Domdeparis (talk) 13:31, 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 01:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, doesn't meet WP:NTRACK, nor does she meet WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added sources to Kansas City Star (2 articles), Runner's World, and FloTrack. Multiple independent significant articles in three different reliable sources as well as current holder of national-level title qualifies under both WP:GNG and WP:NTRACK. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the one Keep vote listed offers sources but they are not convincing and in fact mirror the deletion, therefore delete since she's only a college player. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is true that Schweizer does not meet NTRACK; but since she's an individual NCAA cross-country champion, saying "she does not come anywhere near to close" to meeting it is quite a stretch. It's not clear to me whether she meets GNG, and accordingly I have no opinion on whether to delete or keep; Eggishorn has done good work adding sources. Sideways713 (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the time of my comment there was nothing about her being NCAA champion or being voted NCAA D1 Athlete of the year and as such came nowhere near the NTRACK criteria. She may now meet the GNG criteria but it might also be a case of WP:TOOSOON as the NCAA is a collegiate association and she still has a long way to go before meeting one of the different criteria. She has yet to compete in a senior championship or an international event. Domdeparis (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I admit I haven't been able to find more coverage that would be worth adding to this article. While this level of improvement clearly falls short of the WP:HEYMANN standard, I think that she pases both WP:GNG and WP:1E+, if perhaps only just. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:13, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Coast Cricket Association

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

PROD contested on the grounds that I used the word "team" rather than association. Either way, this local cricket association is not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator implies that the contestation of the PROD was some sort of pedantic nit-picking, but it was not. The argument given was that amateur teams are not notable, but that certainly doesn't necessarily carry over to governing bodies that oversee many teams. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see related discussion about this AfD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local sports team with no significant coverage from third-party sources. Ajf773 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. gnews search is very bare. No inherent notability of sporting associations unless national or international. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRIN, which sets the notability threshold for Australian clubs at grade cricket level. Granted, this is an association, but it is operating below grade cricket - i.e. the best players in the whole association will still be below grade cricket level. Professional cricket in the region is represented by the Sunshine Coast Scorchers playing in the Brisbane Grade Cricket competition. St Anselm (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sunshine Coast Scorchers per what StAnselm said. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

he did not say merge. Secondly this association represents a competition. The scorchers is an actual team. LibStar (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: your source checking is sub par. The article has a link to the Association's website. The sites hompage says, in part, this "In 2015-2016 the competition comprised 62 Senior Teams and 97 Junior Teams as well as its flagship structure in the Brisbane Grade Competition, The Sunshine Coast Scorchers" [21]. There for parts of StAnselm's arguments seem to support merging the two.

I wouldn't expect you to look at the Association's competition rules but it does seem to treat the Scorchers as some form of representative club of the Association. Rule 18.3 in particular. While I'm at it Rule 9.2 of the SCCA competition rules says "Any 1st Grade Scorcher Player may return to play SCCA sanctioned matches for their nominated Club in 1st Div. and any 2nd Grade Scorcher Player may return to 2nd Div." --RockerballAustralia (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 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 18:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

this article i recommend getting rid of Sunshine Coast Cricket Association wikipedia article as this organization does not get much coverage Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above, local sports team with no significant coverage from third-party sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, all opinions which incorrectly label the subject of this article as a "team" ought to be discounted by the closing admin as clearly they have not looked closely. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:20, 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 keep. The consensus is on keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McQuillin

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

No signs of this person being notable, per WP:SCHOLAR. Nothing about his research making any significant impact on further research related to his study area. Members of many geological societies, like any geologist in the UK. Almost the entire article is unsourced, including the whole section of Academic Appointments. Mymis (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A few good cites on GS and prominent contribution to geophysics industry. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC),[reply]

Some contribution to societies is not enough and everything related to geophysics industry is unsourced. Mymis (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Holding a senior position in British Geological Survey should be sufficient to make him notable. I suspect sources will be readily available in Who's who. This is not an academic appointment, so that lists of scholarly publications are not to be expected. The article is probably still only a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources in the article proving that he had any senior positions. Mymis (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think deputy director of the BGS is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source that proves it. Mymis (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't like the absence of in depth coverage in reliable sources, but he seems to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC C3, as he is an elected fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (and that is sourced) and a fellow of the Geological Society of London, both of which seem to be selective enough. Thus, notability is implied. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These societies give away "fellow" titles to hundreds of people every year, and they have like 15,000 fellows in total just for the one based in London. And let's say the article is kept, then it means that 90% of information must be removed as it is simply unsourced. I tried to look for any sources, but there are simply none to prove most of the statements. For instance, the article includes the birth date, wife's name and number of kids etc that cannot be found anywhere, suggesting that the article was written by a relative or the person himself. Mymis (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was more reliant on the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which awards ~50 fellows, with 1500 fellows in total, which is consistent with other societies considered as selective. And I am merely addressing notability (the lack of which is a reason for deletion), I am not defending unsourced information. If it has no sources, it should be removed, even if it's a stub left afterwards. No longer a penguin (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 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 18:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has held a number of important positions, academic appointments, written articles and books. Certainly seems notable Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:38, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Heat 2015 Offseason

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

This article is unsourced and terribly written. I can't find any coverage in independent sources to meet WP:GNG and it doesn't appear to meet any criteria at WP:NSPORT either. Even if sources can be found, it may need to be deleted per WP:TNT. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any relevant information can be covered at 2014–15 Miami Heat season and/or 2015–16 Miami Heat season. Lepricavark (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the whole article is awash in reports of subjective impressions and people's emotional states, WP:OR, not WP:NPOV: "gut clinching [sic]", "best player", "had the Miami heat fans worried", "The major player who fans wanted to stay", "Fans started to doubt", "This had fans discouraged", "Out of nowhere the sky started to clear up slowly", etc. Perhaps these would be appropriate in an article titled "Angst among Miami Heat fans during the 2015 offseason". But that wouldn't be a suitable article for this site. Largoplazo (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the season article; there is no reason for this to stand alone.Jacona (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should not be a standalone article. All relevant information should be placed in proper season articles.--Rockchalk717 08:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic original content. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:30, 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 Speedy deleted G12. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Papa's Bakeria

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

Copied from http://fliplinestudios.wikia.com/wiki/Papa's_Bakeria (which in turn has copyvios of its own). Non-notable game that I can barely verify exists in some form. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 12:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article for a game with no signs of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear promo and doesn't meet WP:NVG. I'd also nominate all of the other related pages for deletion for the same reasons. Also related:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papa's Burgeria Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 13:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As CSD G11/G12. -- ferret (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - promotional; unsourced; not-notable KylieTastic (talk) 22:01, 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. There's three basic themes represented (in more or less equal weights) in the discussion: 1) he's not notable, 2) yes he is, and 3) he's not notable but his book is, and this is more about the book than the person. So, I'm going to call this No Consensus, but I'll also suggest that perhaps a good way forward would be to rename and rework this to be about the book (and leave a redirect behind). After somebody has done that rewrite, if people still feel it's not meeting WP:GNG and/or WP:BOOKCRIT, no prejudice against bringing it back here for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J. Dworkin

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

Nothing in the article to show how this author is notable. Worldcat doesn't appear to substantiate a claim for notability either. Although was de-prodded with the rationale that Worldcat did. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Dworkin considers these questions as he uncovers the story behind Burns's mythmaking works. A long-overdue biography of a writer who shaped our idea of Western history, American Mythmaker documents in fascinating detail the fashioning of some of the greatest American legends"^[4]

American Mythmaker: Walter Noble Burns and the Legends at books.google.com^[5] User:Wamills —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a Google search, I see no evidence that Dworkin is notable. However, his biography of Walter Noble Burns, published by the University of Oklahoma Press, is certainly a good source for expanding that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep “American Mythmaker is a book for the ages, an important and much-needed roadmap to that place where, because of Walter Noble Burns, western history and storytelling met in an indelible way. It’s a tribute to author and historian Mark J. Dworkin that we learn how and why the legends we love to believe were crafted, without our losing any sense of their addictive frontier magic.”—Jeff Guinn, author of The Last Gunfight: The Real Story of the Shootout at the O.K. Corral—And How It Changed the American West^[6] User:Wamills

References

^ "Petition No.: 123324 - The 23 June should be designated as Independence Day, and celebrated annually". UK Parliament. 23 June 2016.
^ "What happens when a petition gets debated in Parliament?". BBC. 18 October 2016.
^ "'No current plans' for a British independence day on June 23". Yahoo! News. 17 October 2016.
^ http://www.worldcat.org/title/american-mythmaker-walter-noble-burns-and-the-legends-of-billy-the-kid-wyatt-earp-and-joaquin-murrieta/oclc/894140203
^ https://books.google.com/books?id=YFbZBgAAQBAJ&pg=PR4&lpg=PR4&dq=%22mark+j.+dworkin%22+american+mythmaker&source=bl&ots=OKfeu1E20M&sig=ezViMF8JBlRLIEwK07_clk_CPtk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZhaL78MfQAhWBNSYKHcbZCEoQ6AEISTAJ#v=onepage&q=%22mark%20j.%20dworkin%22%20american%20mythmaker&f=false
^ http://www.barnesandnoble.com/enwiki/w/american-mythmaker-mark-j-dworkin/1120744013

Wikipedia keeps or deletes articles based on the degree to which the person is or isn't the subject of reliable source coverage in media. We do not keep articles because of how complimentary a reviewer might have been in a jacket blurb, or because Google Books provides nominal verification that the book exists. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move (Redirect) - to American Mythmaker and tweak - almost the entire content of the article is about the book, which I agree seems notable. I can't find anything about the author or his life except this short paid obituary. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply not enough here, the WorldCat collections are simply too trivial. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the "references" that have been provided certainly verify that the book exists, they do not count as reliable source coverage about him for the purposes of passing WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Notability is not synonymous with merely existing — a writer gets an article when real media are writing about him, not just because his book happens to have a primary source sales profile on an online bookstore or an entry in WorldCat. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move (Redirect) - to American Mythmaker as suggested above and edit. The reviews satisfy WP:BOOKCRIT #1. See, e.g. [22], [23] and [24]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Testimonials and passing mentions aren't enough for WP:GNG or any other kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 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 12:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

marginal keep his book American Mythmaker was widely and respectfully reviewed and cited, that and his other work combinr, I think, to produce a sufficient degree of notability as an historian and author, albeit of a period and genre now out of fashion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 25 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 is there are not enough notable entries existing or identified to merit a standalone list at this time. postdlf (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of nightclubs in Rome

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTYELLOW, WP:LINKNO. Entire list consists of external links to night-clubs. Earlier prod contested by a plonker IP who didn't cite any reason Ajf773 (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop. There are notable nightclubs in Rome, a major city. Don't let us be played into contending on the wrong material.

The deletion nominator is driven, I suspect, by the wish to address List of nightclubs in Port Harcourt and other lists related to Port Harcourt, Nigeria, that were created in 2014 and are indexed at Template:Port Harcourt lists. I have participated in some other AFDs related to Port Harcourt. Now that I see there are multiple lists of Port Harcourt things, I suggest we deal with those in a straightforward, explicit way, in one AFD about all of them (and at this point I tend to think they should all be deleted). However, let's not get played by the Port Harcourt promoter/provocateur into contesting unrelated legitimate articles started by various unrelated editors. To Ajf773, would you please withdraw this AFD nomination and start one combo AFD about the Port Harcourt items? --do ncr am 17:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The entire list consists of external links and serves no navigational purposes other than a directory which is what Wikipedia is not. None of these list entries have any evidence of any sort that they are notable. I will not withdrawing the AFDs. Whether they are separate AFDs or in a bundle makes no difference to me. You can add your comments to the concerning AFD consensus just like everyone else has to. Ajf773 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two seconds googling "nightlife in Rome" or "nightclubs in Rome" yields multiple guidebook-type lists, e.g. this Rome Escape one. In fact surely there is a section in every guidebook to Italy about it. The topic of "nightclubs in Rome" has been written about, plenty, so IMO this AFD is dumb. --do ncr am 05:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 'source' you listed appears to be self-published. Anyone can come up with a bunch of fluff from a Google search, and bombard an AFD pretending a stand-alone list passes WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. However if you read the original reasons why I nominated the article for deletion, it is more than just verifying notability. It also fails a large number of policies under what Wikipedia is not. I can also add WP:NOTLINKFARM to the list. Ajf773 (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As at related AFD about nightclubs in Sweden, the deletion nominator seems to fail to understand that wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --do ncr am 17:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is for DELETION. Not only cleanup. As if I have not made myself clear enough. Ajf773 (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the deletion nominator requests deletion for "reasons" that IMO could possibly justify tagging for cleanup, but which are not reasons for deletion. However, consulting the nominator's "reasons" WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and WP:NOTYELLOW, I see that they do not actually apply, so I would not tag the article with links to them, either. Most current items in the list are presented as external link to individual nightclub webpages (either current or former or webpages under construction); this is easily dealt with by editing and does not require the attention of dozens of AFD editors whose attention is brought here. --do ncr am 01:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN also. There is NOTHING notable about a list of external links pertaining to be a business directory. External links to primary sources are not the same as articles, hence no evidence notability. Removing every list entry (which is what will be happening if this article is kept) ends up an empty list. There is another AFD currently in process (not nominated by me) that I see you haven't added your strong keep commments to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of night clubs in Lagos

Delete per WP:NOTLINKFARM and several other policies already mentioned in the nom Spiderone 17:42, 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 12:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a bit at the article, including a Telegraph source about nightlife in Rome. I don't know about nightlife in Lagos, Nigeria, but hey, Rome's nightlife is famous on a world-wide level. Recall that Audrey Hepburn had such a great time going out there that she named it her favorite city. :) The standard for articles here is that the topic need to be notable, covered in reliable sources, which this is. If you dislike the article, add a negative tag or two (of which there are none currently), but this is not for AFD. --do ncr am 13:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still appears promotional. Converting the external links to references which doesn't offer inherited notability to any of the list entries. And BTW the result of the AFD for Lagos was delete Ajf773 (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. I did not say that I obtained reliable sources establishing the article-level notability or even the list-item notability of the nightclubs currently listed. I'll repeat my main assertion, which is what is relevant to the AFD: the general topic of nightclubs in Rome is Wikipedia-notable. This can be established by:

A) Someone providing reliable sources discussing the topic of nightclubs in Rome

B) Existence of multiple articles on individual nightclubs in Rome, which obviously can be listed in a list-article (and categorized, and put into a navigation template if anyone wants to)

C) Reasoning on our own that the topic is notable, because "it is obvious" or more specific assertions: "I know that there are many reliable guidebooks to Rome, and many of them have sections on nightclubs" or "I know that nightclubs in Rome have been depicted in paintings, mentioned in songs, seen in movies, covered in news", etc. None of this requires that a list-article be limited to a mere directory with telephone numbers. Imagine instead a wonderful encyclopedic list, with illustrations and learned discussion and great references.

At least C applies already, and is enough to establish that this AFD should be closed Keep, IMO.

I will taper off in replying to comments. To the deletion-nominator: I get it already that you hate everything about this topic, you don't need to repeat yourself... see if you can refrain from commenting on every single vote or comment by anyone else. :) --do ncr am 21:10, 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 18:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only one of the entries even has an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is not notable as this article is basically a list of bars.--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:28, 20 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. Sandstein 09:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great Regression

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

An economics neologism, though it isn't very new (it seemed to be coined around 2011.) Neither is the article, it's been a stub since creation. Gnews turns up a few articles from 2011 when this phrase was used. Recommending delete per WP:NOTNEO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. 7,790 GHits including articles in National Review and The Nation and the Hoover Institution directly on the topic using the same title as out article. After all, the article is on the topic not the phrase. Every article starts as a stub. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note It is worth sorting through the hits - there's at least a few songs called "Great Regression", as it turns out, and some sources I'm not sure count as reliable such as the American Enterprise Institute. It's also been used as a synonym to the Great Recession; there are even some references to a great regression in ethics from a 1930s book. Of course a quality sourced article would make everyone happy. While not every article starts as a stub, rare is the one that lasts five years as one. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS. as mr vernon says the term has been used to describe something different to the article. LibStar (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A massively important topic, both from a historical and global current affairs perspective. For many analysts, this is the fact of facts explaing the political drama that's erupted in 2016. In November alone, I've seen dozens of sources making this point in English, Spanish, Italian and French. So I'd guess there must be at least tens of thousands of such sources all told. Don't ask me to list them, I'm a busy dude, but I have added some to the article. Admitedly, the vast majority of such sources don't specifically use the phrase 'Great regression'. But as RAN says, this is all about the topic, not the phrase. No objection if any want to rename. Allthough the current title may be the best possible, after all this was created by editor Richard Arthur Norton himself. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please show these actual sources. LibStar (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look. The Guardian article you linked to doesn't mention The Great Regression; it specifically mentions The Great Recession. The Citywire article doesn't mention this, it's about the impact of Brexit. Other editors can make the determination of whether this falls under WP:OR or not. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Not sure if you noticed but I did say "the vast majority of such sources don't specifically use the phrase 'Great regression' ". The citywire article is by no means just about brexit, it's about the recent eruption of the politics of rage, for which the phenomena covered in this topic have been given by sources as a possible explanation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern then is that this is WP:SYNTH. The Wikipedia article talks about worsening economic conditions for some since the '80s; your additions to the article (the Citywire article which really is a piece written by an investment company employee and not journalism) are tying that to Brexit because they both mention the declining manufacturing base. I'm not saying this isn't interesting or that this is your intent, but it seems like you are making some connections that go beyond documenting a neologism and trying to create one, and it makes me a bit uncomfortable. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what you're saying, and if this article was about the term "great regression", then yes my improvements violate WP:NOR.

I guess this all depends on whether folk agree with RAN that the article is about the topic, not the specific phrase we use to identify the phenomena. We could rename the article "Deteriorating economic conditions affecting all the the top few percent in the advanced economies since about 1981" But that is a bit long! We often use short phrases to describe recent phenomena even though they are arguably nelogisms and have multiple possible meanings, e.g. Sharing economy. Just focusing in on the aspects covered in the Citywire article, I've just done a search for "Populism, Trump, Brexit Wages" and got over 2.5 million results! Many of them from top journalists and accademics, and saying similar things as the article e.g. this from another Harvard source: Perhaps the most widely-held view of mass support for populism -- the economic inequality perspective ... There is overwhelming evidence of powerful trends toward greater income andwealth inequality in the West, based on the rise of the knowledge economy, technological automation... " Would be a shame to destroy the article IMO. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of them call it "The Great Regression"? If not, then it's a non-notable neologism and you'd be using WP:SYNTH to tie it into other works. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Write amplification, a GA status article, not all the sources use the phrase "Write amplification" - that is because the article is about the topic, not the neologism, and hence there's no WP:Synth violation . Again in Currency war , another GA, many of the sources don't use the phrase "Currency war". It's the topic that counts, not the neologism.

Putting it another way, documenting neologisms, while respectable, is something largely only of interest to word geeks. Whereas the topic of worsening economic conditions for large sections of the worlds' population, is something of interest to just about every intelligent person on the planet. And indeed it's a topic that seems to be covered in literally millions of sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:58, 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 12:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But this seems like circular reasoning. You are stating there are worsening economic conditions but it seems like we are using this article to justify that stance. I just get the sense that the article is there to push an agenda, which is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be for. Especially when the sources can't even agree on what this "great regression" is, as I mentioned earlier. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:52, 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. Hut 8.5 22:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tsinghua-MIT Global MBA

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not to be confused with Tsinghua University or Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management, which are mentioned in the sources. Kleuske (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as artspam. Full of peacock terms and PoV. The article was developed by a team of meatppuppets with a COI. While schools and universities are considered notable, educational programmes are not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and require further improvement. Explanation is put in the talk page so as not to clutter up discussion here. Mzhang88 (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mzhang88,lPLease see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Wikipedia:Notability and notability and alignment to Wiki guidelines

This article was initially written by unexperienced students and thus had some peacock terms and POV. This was partially also a consequence of the language barrier in English. However, these parts have been removed, and we will further amend the article and add sources in order to meet the WP:NPOV policy. In reply to "meatpuppets with a COI", we have disclosed COI on the article’s talk page as per WP:DISCLOSE. Everything we mention is originally not written by ourselves but cited from verifiable sources.

Article in poor writing doesn't constitute as a solid reason for deletion according to the page WP:AfD. If the article contains wrong or non-notable information, please help us identify the passage or language of concern but do not suggest to delete the page.

Whether or not a subject is notable does not depend exclusively on its form, but largely upon public awareness and significant effects of it. Being an educational program doesn't necessarily mean inherent non-notability. According to the notability guidelines WP:ORG and WP:NOTABILITY, the primary criteria to determine whether the article is notable are “the organization has received significant coverage in multiple sources". Contents are cited from reputable external sources including, Bloomberg, Financial Times, etc although the majority of additional sources do exist in non-English publications such as People Daily, Sohu and NetEase due to its public awareness in China. In additional, the policies have alternative criterion about whether "the scope of activities is national or international in scale". For the Tsinghua-MIT Global MBA, the program is an important academic collaboration between China and the United States represented through two well established universities - not simply a program entirely devised by a single Eastern or Western institution.

Friesehamburg (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friesehamburg Whether or not a subject is notable does not depend exclusively on its form, but largely upon public awareness and significant effects of it. This may be true outside Wikipedia, but as for our encyclopedia, the Wikipedia community decides what is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Being an educational program does not accord inherent notability either; take for example International Baccalaureate which is an old established programme with a Wikipedia article supported by no less than 70 solid referenced sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Educational degree programmes are usually not considered notable, unless there are multiple reliable third party sources talking about. I don't see that here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 12:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual university courses are not normally notable, and the promotional undercurrent of the article makes me profoundly uncomfortable. Can be mentioned in the articles about the participating universities. Sandstein 12:51, 20 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Popara (album)

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

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM and apart from the claim After the release of this album, Popi Maliotaki had great success and recognise, no claim to fame made. I performed google search and failed to find if the album made it to any country's national music chart. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:24, 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]

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]

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM and claim to fame has no verifiable source I am able to locate. Unable to locate sufficient evidence of sales. I might suggest a merge but the album is already listed with content in the artists article. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third and final relist. Only one person has added their input in this discussion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not sure~~ it's not easy assessing Greek sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pretty clear that this was a chart success in Greece. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Verma (journalist)

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

Previously PRODed and deleted as WP:ONEEVENT, the excessive unnecessary bloating in the article about the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots doesn't really bring him any notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crtew (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is a totally different article than the one deleted. The draft had been in development before that was deleted and was intended to be an improvement.Crtew (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. The nominator makes a classic misinterpretation of WP:ONEEVENT. One Event is about a choice we make in handling a topic not disqualifying subjects. When you look at killed journalists around the world, 9 out of 10 killed are native journalists who are not known outside of their own area. The misinterpretation of this policy is dangerous because it would lead to foreign journalists or only journalists who are famous as being the only ones who could have articles, which would lead to a serious hole in our knowledge about this phenomenon. You need to look at the List of journalists killed in India and it's important to build content for that list that informs readers about this subject. The policy though simply doesn't say what most interpreters think. Most people believe wrongfully that one event disqualifies an article. (See below for more) Crtew (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEVENT is simply about a decision of whether to emphasize the event or the person or both. The policy says: ... "it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." Crtew (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. There was significant coverage. The article about the riot is justified because it builds on our knowledge of civil discontent in India. The article about Verma is justified because it builds on our knowledge about the safety and security of journalists and the ability of a society to get the information it needs (See: List of journalists killed in India). These are two distinct threads that you will find in Wikipedia. I've seen other people in the past try to delete these lists and fail. The subject needs these articles to truly know about the phenomenon. Crtew (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination needs to be relisted under journalism and not just by area.Crtew (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WALL and more importantly WP:AGENDA. Listed in Journalism-related list too. And Delhi is not in MP. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Read them. The articles are clearly linked to the separate phenomena. Readers will follow their own interests. I can also assure you that there is no promotion or conflict here. Some edit articles about old 45 top ten hits and others edit about journalists and still others write about India. Thank you for you feedback, Crtew (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to edit topics of your choice. But what we see here is people-should-known-about-struggles-of-journalists, oh-my-god-so-many-journalists-killed, so-much-violence-in-india-on-journalism and such type of argument. Also, being employee of Network 18, their publications should not be used to count in " significant coverage" and works of Committee to Protect Journalists should be excluded likewise. The article is also bloated with irrelevant info, though sourced, just to make the guy look notable! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion, and it is that, just your opinion. Crtew (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, you are making factual errors that I can not let stand. The article does not build notability on either of the sources you mentioned. That's wrong. Check the sources for yourself. Crtew (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article mostly covers his death in riots and other info related to his death. I think there is no need of separate article. His inclusion in List of journalists killed in India is enough as it lacks enough info to be retained as standalone article.--Nizil (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename After further editing, the article should be renamed the "Killing of Rajesh Verma and Salim Israr" as the article has become less about Verma and more about the media workers killed during riots.Crtew (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per extensive sourcing, per information only provided in this individual article. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots This is a WP:ONEEVENT and it should be covered in the larger article where the context is present. The amount of coverage is not so much that a standalone article is required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect if needed as all that's currently here to say is the event itself and, at that, there's nothing else but said event, no other notability claims. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots as per ONEEVENT. I disagree with a redirect. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. or redirect, but there's not really enough info to be worth a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of sources, national coverage, police assertions that he was targeted as a journalists (not a stray bullet source #1), and attention paid to the death after the incident.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:33, 26 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 22:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanah Runcuk

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

Not notable. Article creator is WP:SPA. Citobun (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be notable, but it being this editor's first contribution to Wikipedia is not a reason for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:14, 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 02:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The artwork isn't independently notable. I have a left a welcome template on the author's talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Barely any input, hopefully another week will help build a more obvious consensus. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin I suggest either a relist or a WP:SOFTDELETE if there is no input. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's now sufficient consensus, the information itself is bare and nothing lends actual substance, apart from the few bits of information which still amount to no needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like an interesting topic, so I put some effort into searching for sources. Alas, could not find any. There's a version of this on id, where it may be more appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:57, 26 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Walls and the Big Sky

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

Cannot find any mention of album except on youtube and music streaming sites. Should be deleted and content merged with article on artist. Rogermx (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than WP:ITEXISTS-type information and downloads, the appears to be only one WP:RS and even that[25] only mentions the album in passing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NM In ictu oculi (talk) 18:40, 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 speedy delete. TimothyJosephWood 23:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WCF Wrestling

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

Fails WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 10:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 10:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as in fact A7 and WP:NOT also applies since this only exists as a listing, enough said. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 14 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 18:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found...literally nothing besides social media. Exactly zero news coverage. Agree that it is eligible under no credible claim. I have nominated for A7. TimothyJosephWood 18:31, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Software

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

inadequate RS s for notability Most refs are their own website, some are minor reviews of the software, DGG ( talk ) 10:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear listing of which there is no actual significance, notability or substance and WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 15:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A couple trivial mentions does not provide notability requirements.(Fails notability requirements and is almost able to be nominated for speedy deletion.) FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:16, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Pham (entrepreneur)

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. "References" are trivial, do not mention the article subject, or are WP:PRIMARY in nature. reddogsix (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businssman.John Pack Lambert (talk)
Delete as I concur with the nomination in that it's clear this only exists for PR hence WP:NOT applies alone. SwisterTwister talk 16:24, 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. clear consensus. AfD is better than speedy for these in one respect : it lets us use G5 for recreation. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inna Halubets

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

This article should be deleted for failing WP:BASIC, and per the outcome of the just-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iurie Emilian.

I trust we can agree to the following: being "an elected volunteer member of the Eurasia Regional Scout Committee of the World Organization of the Scout Movement" does not confer any sort of notability, absent "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-at least 4 people disagreed with you last time, so no, we don't all agree with you, and again I point out your bad faith. I already knew you were lazy, failing even to split the two last nominations into sections, and I already knew you were dirty, based on your red herrings, even if your understanding of notability is thorough, but failing six times to warn the author (prod and afd), and your smug, gloating edit summaries, [26] are too much. I deny your competence as a Wikipedian and cast aspersions on your homepage tag that you are somehow "trying to spread peace." I call bullshit. People who lie are liars.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top of that you're a troll [27]. Bring it to an admin, I dare you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources to establish notability. Calling people "trolls" is not generally considered behavior acceptable on Wikipedia and I would ask Kinetetsubuffalo to refrain from such personal attacks on other editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is trolling generally considered behavior acceptable on Wikipedia? Have you even looked at the diffs? Didn't think so.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per well laid-out and defended rationales of Kintetsubuffalo. --evrik ^(talk) 16:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Said "rationales" happen to entirely avoid addressing WP:BASIC, fulfilling which is sort of a basic (heh) requirement for biographies. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article is not going to be saved by hurling insults and abuse, but by demonstrating that the subject has received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Anything else is just a distraction. Furthermore, as WP:NPA admonishes, "comment on content, not on the contributor". (And yes, stuff like this surely crosses the line from a CIV matter to an NPA one.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wish both sides of this discussion would calm down. Kintetsubuffalo please address the issues and not attack other editors. Biruitorul, have you seriously looked for sources? We are all volunteers. We build articles slowly. This article and the others you nominated are quite new. The World Organization of the Scout Movement is an important body and people associated with it and its continental regions are likely to be noticed in the press fairly frequently as time goes on. Many of those notices may not be in English. I think this nomination should be withdrawn to give editors time to look for sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion runs for a week. If someone adduces evidence that the subject has received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", of course I shall withdraw. Until then, the burden of proving notability rests on the "keep" voters. And remember, we need actual sources, not airy suppositions about what is "likely to be noticed in the press fairly frequently as time goes on" (a formulation that smacks of crystal balling). - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - and replying to pretty well every comment is not appropriate! It smacks of bullying. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)--Bduke (Discussion) 02:46, 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 18:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything that isn't from the official scout site or a Wikipedia mirror. It actually may qualify for A7. Also, for the record, WP:FUCKYOUKEEP doesn't appear to redirect to WP:ADHOM, but maybe it should. Also, for the record, some people in the conversation probably need to go the hell outside and cool their jets for a while before things escalate further than they already have. TimothyJosephWood 18:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fairly clear failure of GNG. The Cyrillic name generates zero Google hits outside of WP and a mirror, the sources showing are inadequate for a GNG pass, and I'm not seeing anything for the Latin name either. The elected position falls far short of the WP:POLITICIAN SNG. Carrite (talk) 14:49, 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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump-Tsai call

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

Plenty of citations for the call, but that doesn't mean it deserves a separate article. Content should be merged (but probably already is covered) in one of the many Trump articles. Drmies (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage, see zh:川蔡通話 there are multiple responses to this event and it may be a milestone in the relations of the U.S. and the Asia-Pacific region. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RECENTISM. Yes, there are reliable journalistic sources about this call. No, we should not have a standalone article summarizing that content. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see (keep-ish) - per Champion, there is ample coverage right now, but we haven't had enough time to judge if it has a major impact on anything yet (I'm guessing we'll have to wait until after Trump takes office to see). There isn't really a clear merge target right now, so I don't think having it around is really harmful. As an alternative, possibly draftify. ansh 666 20:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merge into Taiwan–United States relations — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic moment for US relations with Taiwan and PRC.LM2000 (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In 50-100 years we might then be able to assess how important this one conversation was. Right now, not so much. This is the problem with Wikipedia's willingness to use rely on primary sources, especially journalism. We end up with articles like Khizr and Ghazala Khan borne of contemporaneous reportage which may ultimately end up being seen as pointless distractions. Just because GNG allows it, our efforts should not result in this sort of inclusionism. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take much for political events to pass WP:GNG but it's hard to distinguish what's WP:NOTNEWS when you're in the thick of it. I'm not reluctant to !vote keep in this case because this event was the first of its kind since 1979, making it something of a milestone and very likely to pass WP:10YT.LM2000 (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While still in progress, I've added content with more reliable English sources and revised the whole article. An article with about 100,000 bytes information on zhwiki is obviously important enough to stay on enwiki as itself. Google those keywords just these days and you can expect there will be more follow-up developments related to this in the future. -- Wildcursive (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic event! -- Wetrace (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of citations doesn't mean that a separate article should not exist either. I don't see why a deletion is needed. --Howard61313 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Abundantly commented event, with truly historical potential. Long and well-researched article in Chinese Wikipedia. — JFG ^talk 06:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (widely covered historic and notable event). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually I was looking for something on this tonight when I found this.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Taiwan-United States relations and Political positions of Donald Trump#Asia. I find the keep arguments entirely unconvincing. We don't keep things because they may be historic. Just because there are plenty of sources doesn't mean it needs a stand-alone article (WP:NOPAGE, WP:NOTNEWS), otherwise we'd have articles about all of Trump's controversial tweets, each one of his rumored appointments, each controversial thing he said... and, really, everything he does. The WP:GNG requires lasting significance, and even if Trump's political positions weren't ephemeral, we don't have that yet. Is it possible this will be significant in the future? Sure. But if nothing changed over the next four years, retaining the status quo, and they didn't talk again, and nobody talked about this call again, would it still really be worthy of an article as opposed to inclusion in one of the others? Unless you can answer that in the affirmative, we shouldn't be keeping it. We have umpteen articles about Trump and his activities, and plenty of articles about foreign relations that a symbolic phone call can fit nicely into. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Taiwan-United States relations per Rhododendrites. WP:NOTNEWS states, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." WP:PERSISTENCE states: "duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance." I can certainly see an encyclopedic topic of Donald Trump's foreign policy or more specifically Trump's Chinese foreign policy, with this event being a significant part. - --Enos733 (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty source. --Alfredo ougaowen (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into Taiwan–United States relations. Aspect of that topic. It may eventually grow into an article about relations under the Trump administration, but detailed coverage of this single event veers too much into WP:NOTNEWS territory. Sandstein 10:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough sources and coverage. It "is" historic but not "may be", and it has enough significance, since it is the first time for a Taiwanese President and a U.S. President or President-elect directly spoken since 1979, which is an important mark of the bilateral relationship, no matter it would have great change or not in the future. It was not just like other Trump controversial thing has said. In addition, you may refer to the Chinese version of this article: zh:川蔡通話.- Peace1 _(talk) at 01:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event is clearly a notable milestone. In the long run, I believe this will survive WP:PERSISTENCE. The fact that it is too early to say for sure does not mean it is not persistent. There is plenty of detailed information that belongs in this article, such as how the call was set up and what it means for US relations with both Taiwan and China. If that information were merged into Taiwan-United States relations, it would be too much of a distraction from that article. Instead, it deserves a main-article link from that article. Further, merging this into Taiwan-United States relations ignores that this is equally important to China–United States relations. RichardMathews (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that last part, it's perhaps more important to China-US relations than Taiwan. Hence why I said a lack of clear merge target. ansh 666 19:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Escape (2017 film)

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

No references provided in the article. I checked Google news and could not come up with a single news related to this film. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Chinese version of the article has two solid sources discussing the film; filming started last May in Hong Kong. [28], [29]. Google Translate changes the name to "Comparative Study" but you can see the Chinese characters are identical. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 01:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Мандичка's findings. Мандичка, is there an IMDb page for this movie? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Despite a lack of English citations, there are certainly Chinese sources available, so I'd say that it'd be more beneficial for the article to have more references rather than for it to be outright deleted. @Erik: After I did a search, this movie doesn't have an IMDb page yet. –Matthew - (talk) 21:01, 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. I guess that given the conspicuous lack of interest in this topic there's nothing to stop anybody from going ahead with the proposed merger, though. Sandstein 08:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu FRG-7700

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

Non-notable electronic product. Not enough references or coverage to justify its own article.afd Mikeblas (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 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 18:01, 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 03:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is a member of a family of "Foxtrot Tango" radio receivers that together probably rise to notability but individually probably do not. E.g., Yaesu FT-7(B) is a member of the family with a materially similar page. Whatever the result of this discussion is should probably apply to the rest of the items listed at Yaesu_(brand)#Amateur_radio_transceivers_.28HF.29. One option would be to merge into a new article for the FT series as a whole.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:48, 2 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan Kazmi

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

The Person mentioned in the article doesn't fulfills WP:BIO. Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 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. Not a huge amount of discussion here, but the only person arguing to keep is the article's main author, citing reasons which amount to WP:INHERIT. What we need is better coverage of the band itself, in better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hallway

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

The band has not racked up the activity or the following necessary to meet our music guidelines. Not prodding because the band article has been subject to deletion before, albeit in a much shorter form. Geschichte (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band has two members who have won a Norwegian Grammy. One of which is the frontman. One member is from Norwegian band, Shevils and the 2 Grammy winners (spellemannprisen) are formerly of Team Me. The members of this band bring their notability with them. In addition to this, they were given a prime slot at Øyafestivalen as well as Slottsfjell Festival, which are both very big music festivals in Norway. They also played Sørveiv which is a Norwegian music showcase and conference and have been booked to play Trondheim Calling, another big Norwegian music festival. Outofthedim (talk) 00:21, 01 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERIT. Geschichte (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON with no prejudice against re-creating in the future. The available coverage is minimal and mostly very short pieces.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:22, 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. czar 07:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Hudson

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

The article does not show that he fulfills the criteria from WP:NHOCKEY Domdeparis (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:14, 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 03:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One on FOX

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

Not enough independent notability. Moreover, we don't have articles on every country's tv coveraged of Formula One, simply because there are so many of them.T v x1 02:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC) T v x1 02:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been improve and will have improvements during the year.Rowde (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would have to agree per nom, in many countries there are multiple channels which currently, or have in the past, broadcast coverage of Formula One. To create an article for each and every one, detailing race broadcasts is excessive. Also borders on WP:NOTDIRECTORY and/or WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Eagleash (talk) 01:01, 19 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 18:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This information should be in the List of Formula One broadcasters page Seasider91 (talk) 18:06, 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 redirect to Sky Sports. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Brooks

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

fails WP:CREATIVE as a journalist. Almost all the sources i found were from her employer sky sports and the coverage is very limited where she is the subject of coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable TV journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into Sky Sports. Other commentators and journalists are variously referred to throughout the article. Not sufficient notability for separate article. Aoziwe (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eggology

AfDs for this article:

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

As a company, it doesn't appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. As a brand/product, it exists, has some use in a few cookery books, etc, but appears to lack significant coverage. The brand was bought out by Pearl Valley Farms in 2015, and a redirect and encapsulation there might theoretically be an option, but PVF doesn't meet CORPDEPTH either. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:05, 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 02:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising and literally everything emphasizes it hence not notable and WP:NOT policy also applies. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete -- fails to establish notability & this content belongs on the company web site anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar Shesh

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

No sources show that he had written as the count shows in the article. Not much in the searches. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. First, the nom does not make any argument for deletion, just that the factual content of the article may be a problem - and while I cannot verify the 10 novels, the cited source does confirm 22 plays. Second, subject seems notable (in-depth coverage, won some awards). At most, I can see this tagged with {{verification failed}}, but deletion discussion is the wrong venue. I recommend speedy keep since the nominator did not make any valid arguments for deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Just because the nominator does not know the writer in question, does not mean the article is deleteworthy. Nominator must come up with a proof that the writer is not a known figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourabhpaul1986 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 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 17:28, 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 keep. The article is well reffed. The keep arguments apply here. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 18:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impacts of tourism

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

Essay, partly based on own work (see source 11 and name original author) The Banner talk 13:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, it's certainly an ESSAY, and there's apparently a COI, but why should we delete it? It's a reliably cited article on an undoubtedly notable topic. Hmm? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not so bad as to be shot on sight, clearly notable topic, albeit it could use some trimming that ordinary editing can do. Bearian (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree this is not TNTable. The article may have issues, but it is not bad enough to just kill it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:19, 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 03:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youth and Environment Europe

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

Doesn't meet notability criteria for WP:NONPROFIT. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first glance and reading through the article, I would've said keep. There are a severe lack of sources (I can't find any on Google that would be suitable). For that, it doesn't meet the criteria and therefore, I'm voting delete. st170e^talk 00:40, 19 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 17:28, 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) 08:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analyzation of Ama Ata Aidoo’s Changes

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

essay--probably a school essay on a notable writer for whom we already have an article Ama Ata Aidoo. There are no specific references, and the essay is original research. Possibly someo f the material could be used in the real article. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom suggests, this looks like a school essay. But it doesn't look like an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure original research: the author's own "analyzation" (when did that become a word) of Aidoo's novel Changes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:58, 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) 08:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suds Jain

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

There's no meaningful hopes of actual meaningful improvements especially since it's clear this is only existing as a PR listing hence WP:NOT certainly applies; the sheer fact he's not satisfying WP:POLITICIAN, but then no other sensible notability, it shows there's nothing to suggest this is a policy-based article, regardless of any attention of his job and it shows when the sources simply consist of his own bio, his other bio and a campaign link. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is an extremely low level politician and his activities with the anti-global warming group are not on a level for notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being on a city planning committee nor being an unsuccessful candidate for city council constitutes an WP:NPOL pass, there's no claim of notability as an environmentalist besides the fact that he exists as one, and the referencing is entirely to primary sources (his own campaign website, his own "our staff" profile on the website of his own employer and a raw table of election results) with not even a shred of reliable source coverage shown. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody is entitled to an article just because he can be nominally verified as existing — but the evidence of notability and sourceability needed for an article to become earned simply isn't being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 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 redirect to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. And merge from history such content as editors may deem appropriate to include. Sandstein 10:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Electors

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

Appears to be largely a duplicate of Faithless elector revolt in the United States presidential election, 2016. Perhaps could become a redirect. So many other potential issue but I'll stick with that for now. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Hang googles (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, the page should be changed to a redirect to the faithless elector 2016 page. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (with a note that the "revolt" page has now been renamed Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ʬʬ (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK so I'm not clear on protocol with this. Should I remove the AfD and ask you all to go add your commentary to the redirect suggestion I put on Talk:Hamilton_Electors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCrazedBeast (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should encourage the dissenter there to move here. Broadly speaking, an AFD discussion carries more weight than a talk page discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nat Gertler! I added an entry there to suggest contributing here.TheCrazedBeast (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, then merge: It would seem that "Hamilton Electors" should be a section of its own, within the Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016; whereas by the time that the Electoral vote occurs, perhaps not all revolting Electors will be under the banner of the Hamilton group. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 07:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do think this article (Hamilton Electors) should be kept, simply because the name Hamilton Electors has become popular and someone trying to find a citation on that term would not necessarily know to look under the term "electoral revolt" or "faithless elector". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.144.58 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what a "redirect" does - when people look up Hamilton Electors, it will send them to the right article. That way, we don't have to have two different articles for the same thing with two names. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Unnecessary duplicate of the other page. It's already discussed there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Honestly, this probably should not even be discussed. Obviously the organization is notable to the point of distinction from the movement they are a part of. Sad how biased Wikipedia has become.--Frogsareamphibianstoo (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Frogsareamphibianstoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: You may have misconstrued the AfD. I did not assert that faithless elector action in this election isn't notable. I simply stated that this article may be a duplicate. It does not appear to be written about an organization (although it mentions one) but rather about the action or movement around faithless electors in this election. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page is about a notable group, distinct from the general topic of faithless Electors. They have achieved notoriety (see citation stories) for leading a particular dissent movement in a particular election. The faithless elector article, covers many such dissents as a category. I think merge would be categorically analogous to merging a page about the DNC or Tea Party to one instead about Political parties. If there is not sufficient distinction in the article currently then that should be fixed. --Pablo Mayrgundter (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is no argument here that the 2016 events are not notable and deserve their own article separate from Faithless elector. Rather, that there are two articles on the same subject. Hamilton Electors and Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep Obviously, this organisation is related, but not identical to the elector revolt. Relevance and other criteria are clearly met. --Mathmensch (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Alexander Hamilton is an ambiguous enough historical figure that the name is basically neutral, and a good shorthand for the principle being invoked. Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 violates WP:POVTITLE because "faithless" is obviously a pejorative that serves one point of view and uses name-calling against the opposite POV. The other one should merge to Hamilton Electors. In general, any article about a group uses the title the group uses for themselves, even if it has a positive connotation for the group, and not what their enemies call them, especially when their enemies' term is pejorative. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except the "Hamilton Electors" are a subset of the faithless electors in this Electoral College. and faithless electors is the WP:COMMON name for such folks. (And the idea that Hamilton, a "Founding Father" who gets placed on currency and has a hit Broadway show about him at the moment, is a neutral term does not seem likely.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was also instrumental in the compromise that made slaves 3/5 of a person in order to increase the power of slave states, as part of an electoral college system that is seen as a scourge by many, and the whole reason for the need for Hamilton Electors. He is kind of to blame for this whole mess. As with any US Founding Father, he's complicated, and he doesn't fit neatly into modern political pigeon holes. In the naive sense that any Founding Father is a Good Thing like mom and apple pie, there's nothing wrong with that. Lots of articles have titles for groups that use pleasant words chosen by those groups to describe themselves. Making an exception on those grounds for this group is a double standard.

I don't know the point in your argument by contradiction. I'll contradict you right back: faithless elector is the general term for any elector who didn't vote as expected. Hamilton Elector is the specific, common term for any elector in the 2016 election who intends to vote other than as expected, or who encourages other to do so, or who has resigned in protest, or who has taken some other, related course. The entire group rallies under the banner of 'Hamilton Elector', and the citations in Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 back that up. You know you've got a weird article title when you're citing sources that call your subject something other than what you're calling it. Some still use 'faithless', but the wider term is Hamilton Elector. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can find things to criticize about Hamilton hardly means it's a neutral term (and the term your complaining about as being non-neutral, "faithless", is commonly used to describe atheists and agnostics, and there is much good that can be said about them.) As for whether "Hamilton Elector" is the common reference for all the faithless electors in this go-round, rather than a subset involved in a specific campaign, I suggest you look at the recent Google news results for Chris Suprun; I see lots of headlines there describing him as a faithless elector, and not a one describing him as a Hamilton Elector. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just said "Some still use 'faithless'" you reply, "Oh yeah? Well here's proof that SOME still use faithless!" So let's not keep running up the word count here reiterating that we both agree that the term is used by some. What is really notable about your google news link is that you've presented us with a horde of non-news opinion articles attacking Chris Suprun, so naturally they choose the pejorative term to go with their jeremiads. Like I said, POV title, which is against policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Faithless elector has had an article since 2005 (and was used long before it became its own article). The merits of the term can be argued on that article's talk page or if someone wants to assert that Hamilton Elector is now the common name for a Faithless Elector. For now the term is what it is and this AfD discussion isn't about the name of the article. This discussion is simply that there are 2 pages that, as currently written, are about the same redundant subject. As an example that readers and editors are treating them as redundant articles, take a look at the About hatnote on Faithless elector where both pages are linked in the same sentence. If Hamilton Electors is a different topic, then it should be rewritten to be about the organization rather than a largely redundant article as it currently is. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has asserted that Hamilton Elector is now the common term for faithless elector, and nobody has had any thought of moving or changing the article Faithless elector. As far as rewriting, once Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 is merged into Hamilton Electors, the redundancies and scope issues can be cleanly resolved.

Keep in mind, no faithless electors in the United States presidential election of 2016 exist. An elector who has not yet voted is not "faithless". Even an elector who says they intend to change their vote has not yet committed this faithlessness. This article Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 is about a topic that does not exist, and is not scheduled, or prd-determeined event or actions people will take. It is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to presume any faithless electors will exist in the 2016 cycle, based only on speculation.

On the other hand, the Hamilton Elector movement does exist. It has adherents, spokespeople, supporters and critics. Even if all electors vote in the conventional and none are 'faithless', the Hamilton Elector movement will still have existed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge there seems to be consensus that Hamilton Electors and Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 need to be merged. Maybe do that speedily with a redirect from here to the Faithless 2016 article? Then effectively the title for the merged article is being discussed here: Talk:Faithless_electors_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Requested_move_13_December_2016 Tom B (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. This Hamilton Electors article is a POV fork of the faithless electors article. —Lowellian (reply) 23:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. Now that the electoral college has voted, it is no longer a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to presume that faithless electors will exist in the 2016 cycle. However, the Hamilton Electors' goal failed to materialize at any level, as there was no alternative candidate to receive votes from both Democratic and Republican electors. As such, Hamilton Electors is only notable enough to warrant a mention in the article Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. If there's any content at this article that is not already included at the main article (excluding excessive amounts of detail) then that should be merged; if not, then a redirect will suffice. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:15, 20 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 withdrawn. . Nominator has redirected this instead. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaji

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

Lack of context. JustBerry (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:12, 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 speedy deletion (A7). (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 17:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween Express

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

Does not satisfy WP:CORP by any criteria. Unable to locate any significant secondary references. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 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. Not unanimous, but the vast majority clearly feel that the level of media coverage of this person is not indicative of notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Minott

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

Minott is only notable for being Miss Florida, and being Miss any state is not enough on its own to justify having a stand alone article on the person. Some might claim being 4th runner up to Miss America is enough, but the fact that it gets a one line notice in the blurb section of her local paper and that is it suggests it is not. Coverage of Minott elsewhere is very minor. She had a role in the 2015 film War Room, but it was "Brightwell Employee", this is an extremely minor role. Her other film role was not even credited. The only other thing I came up with in my search that was not a blog post or a YouTube link was a notice about her speaking at a central Florida Methodist women's meeting, and that was an announcement from the orginazation drumming up publicity. There is just not the 3rd party news coverage over an extended period to justify having the article on Minott. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not aware that the community has come to a consensus that participation in a beauty pageant, even a large-scale one, confers notability in the absence of WP:GNG. A WP:BIO1E otherwise. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is never conferred, so of course the community would never consent to such a thing. The community wants to cover all state winners of Miss America and Miss USA. Whether or not the material is merged or standalone seems to be a detail left up to the people willing to do the work, except for out-of-process deletion discussions improperly closed as delete. Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO1E is an argument to merge. Did you have an argument for deletion, or did you intend this to be a merge !vote? Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my argument for deletion was and is: There are no WP:RS that cover Ms. Minott as an individual except in connection with placing in a pageant. If, as you say, the community wants to cover all participants in these pageants, could you please direct me to that discussion? I don't want to presume for others but from the comments in this discussion the nominator and the other editors may also not be aware of that decision. That may well just be a case of two WP sub-communities (i.e., pageant-focused editors and AfD-focused editors) not interacting. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for covering all participants, see Miss Florida. For some extracted comments from the Wikiproject, see my reply at here. I also reviewed WP:BIO1E, and again state that it is not an argument for deletion. I also did a Wikipedia search on the topic's name and see that a deletion will create 47 red links. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating first of all, thank you for providing information that, indeed, there were apparently discussions in the relevant Wikiproject where intentions are to include all state-level Miss USA/Miss America winners. I was not aware of that, especially since I had stopped following DGG's talk page and did not see your response to John Pack Lambert. That all said, I think a larger discussion needs to happen. I am not currently inclined to agree that the project's ambitions should overrule the usual standards, particularly the general notability guideline, and WP:ATD is not an absolute. You have added references, but after reviewing them (the ones that I could get to, that is) there seems to be a high amount of routine coverage. I think the only way forward is to open an RfC where both sub-communities, the AfD participants and the WikiProject members, together with anyone from the larger community, can meet and hash out a consistent standard on beauty pageant nominations. To demonstrate my good faith, I will, for the time being, strike my Delete pending the organization of such a discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I opened an RFC at the talk page of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Beauty pageants and put notice of it at the village pump. Very few people have participated, but like here, the general consensus is that being Miss some state is not a default sign of notability, and we need to get more than routine coverage to keep articles. This is also the working consensus for over 100 AFD nominations from beauty pageant related articles in the last 6 months. Unscintillating is about the only person who opposes this, with every measure of beauracatic rulesmanship he can muster, even attacking people for not posting on the accounts of dead people about nominations. It is not good faith to reward his hardheadedness, but an act of giving into bullying.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment of 100 AfDs, a review of the Wikiproject Beauty Pageant talk page shows that JPL attracted attention because JPL had 70 AfDs simultaneously open at the end of August. Unscintillating (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The right RfC link is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants. The RfC I refer to is item 61.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewers: The above may be taken to apply equally to the AfD discussions for Melaina Shipwash, Caleche_Manos, Randi Sundquist, and Katherine Kelley, also nominated by John Pack Lambert for similar rationales and relisted for further consideration. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was originally closed as no consensus because there is a lack of Wikipedia consensus on the matter on December 6th, after I presented some issues to the closer, and another editor argued that these should be considered on a case by case basis, the administrator who closed gave permission to reopen this discussion. I primarily state this so the time frame when this discussion has actually been open can be clearly seen. It was closed from early December 6th (about 7 GMT) to about 14 GMT on December 9th.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply participating itself is not at all close to actual significance in substance let alone an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are the citations from the article, skipping obvious primary sources:

"Miss Florida to visit Bay County". The News Herald (Panama City). January 17, 2009. Retrieved December 6, 2010.
"The Week In Review". The News Press - Fort Myers, Fla. Feb 1, 2009. p. B.5. Retrieved December 6, 2010. Miss Florida Sierra Minott 21 of Fort Myers was named fourth runnerup in this year's Miss America pageant.
"Teen third runner-up in event". The News Press - Fort Myers, Fla. August 26, 2005. Retrieved December 6, 2010. Sierra Minott 17 a Fort Myers High School senior was chosen third runnerup at Miss America's Outstanding Teen Pageant last week in Orlando
"Minott Headed to Miss America Pageant". Palm Beach Atlantic University. Summer 2008. Retrieved December 6, 2010.

Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are not policy based arguments, as even if everything argued is true, we still will cover this topic in the encyclopedia. See WP:ATD. One of the bottom lines for a volunteer organization is the people willing to do the work. This means that the bottom line for an argument of non-notability here is, are you willing to do the work to marge?
In addition to there being no argument for deletion, and good reason to speedy close such discussions, this topic is notable. The title of "Miss Florida 2015" does not need an introduction for readers to recognize the title. So there is not really any argument that the title is "well-known". Whether or not the title is "significant" is less clear to me, but the alternative is that it is not significant, which is not the prevailing consensus on Wikipedia. So with just these two sentences, this establishes ANYBIO#1. There is also good reason to believe that this topic passes WP:GNG, and that anyone who achieves this title will be known for this accomplishment throughout the rest of their professional career, so the title is enduring. Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- coverage is strictly local; this is insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:GNG wants is reliable sources. WP:AUD is found in WP:CORP. Unscintillating (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the notability bar is higher for living people than for corporations, so audience should be considered, especially when we are dealing with a minor competition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 22 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Keegan

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

Keegan was Miss Nevada. This alone is not enough to establish notability. Of the listed sources, one shows up as listed as a blog when you look at it, even though it is a newspaper related blog. There is just not sustained coverage. If we had any coverage outside of Nevada I might think she crossed some notability line, but it does not appear so. My search for more sources came up with routine non-reliable coverage but nothing substantial. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question per WP:BIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." qualifies as inherent notability. Ms. Keegan won Miss Nevada, which is part of the Miss America pageant. Would we count Miss Insert State Here as a well-known and significant award? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Miss Insert State here is not a notable award. There has been a huge number of discussions over the last six months that establish this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlee Baracy (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Hancock, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Crain, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Halfman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Stomps, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dellynne Catching are just a few. That is not delving into the very closely related Miss instert state USA winners, who even more articles on have been deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete in that case. Gnews is turning up nothing but mentions to past winners of the content. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that were she merely the annual title holder this would not establish outstanding notability. However, the additional coverage (indeed mostly local) of using her position as an advocacy for rape victims has gained independent coverage (which, according to my google search, continued years beyond the single year she was the title holder) makes her something other than a run of the mill beauty contest winner. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion was originally closed as no consensus because there is a lack of Wikipedia consensus on the matter on December 6th, after I presented some issues to the closer, and another editor argued that these should be considered on a case by case basis, the administrator who closed gave permission to reopen this discussion. I primarily state this so the time frame when this discussion has actually been open can be clearly seen. It was closed from early December 6th (about 7 GMT) to about 16 GMT on December 9th.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 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 01:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing stands out about this state-level winner. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no actual notability or substance apart from the mere participating. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Miss Nevada" is a well-known award that follows the careers of the winners throughout their life. To satisfy ANYBIO#1, the award must also be significant, which I think is shown by the long-lived attention given to those who have achieved the award. Evidence that "Miss Nevada" is known world-wide is provided by a Google news search on ["Miss Nevada" -site:.com -site:.org -site:.edu] which shows great interest in the UK when a Miss Nevaada is arrested on drug charges, and what should not be surprising international attention for Miss Nevada when Miss Nevada wins the Miss America crown. In any case, Wikipedia wants to cover all entrants to the Miss America pageant, so WP:DEL8 is not an argument for deletion. The means that the remedy for non-notability is for the editors who think this is the case to do the work to merge the content to articles such as Miss Nevada. Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, only Miss America is a well known award that follows the winners. I have found Linkedin entries for winners of state competitions of Miss x state and Miss x state USA that fail to mention they won that award. Winning Miss America follows the winner, winning the state award does not, and creates zero coverage for the person once they no longer have the title. Unscintillating's claims about the prestige of these awards are just plain false.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I provided evidence that "Miss Nevada" is known world wide, and showed how to reproduce the search. You can't just say that this evidence is "plain false" without any explanation and still have a reasonable argument.
    If you've found winners who don't want the attention, this doesn't mean that the public doesn't recognize the award when told.
    And the point always goes back to the fact that notability is not a key factor here as it does not equate to a WP:DEL8 argument. The key factor is who is willing to do the work to build the encyclopedia. When have you ever merged one of these topics due to your concern of a lack of notability? When have you merged one of the first or second Seventy (LDS Church)? Unscintillating (talk) 03:17, 22 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caleche Manos

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

Manos only thing that comes close to a claim to fame is being Miss Nevada. However that is not a title that conveys notability. In fact of the 4 sources with the article, the 4th is a Las Vegas Review Journal article that basically screams "Miss American pageant does not matter anymore." Of the 4 sources, only one is about her, and that is the very local paper from her part of Nevada. One Las Vegas article fact checks her loss the previous year. The other 2 exist because the Miss America pageant was in Las Vegas and only mention her in passing. A google search showed up a few articles about her suing the Los Angeles police department in 2012 for how she was treated when investigators went to her apartment instead of the one they had a warrant for. However that would be excluded on "Wikipedia is not news" guidelines. We have nothing of substance about her to justify notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was originally closed as no consensus because there is a lack of Wikipedia consensus on the matter on December 6th, after I presented some issues to the closer, and another editor argued that these should be considered on a case by case basis, the administrator who closed gave permission to reopen this discussion. I primarily state this so the time frame when this discussion has actually been open can be clearly seen. It was closed from early December 6th (about 7 GMT) to about 14 GMT on December 9th.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 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 01:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a mere participation is only trivial and is therefore not exchangeable for notability and substance, not is the fact that's all there exists to say. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 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 no consensus. No consensus for deletion has been formed, though I'd strongly advise editors (especially Sionk) to continue their work in improving the article to avoid it being renominated in the future. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MySupermarket

AfDs for this article:

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

Blatant advertisement even if it's not as severe as others because not only are the casually tossed sources here all trivial and unconvincing, some are obvious press releases while others are comparably covert about it, and the ABC News themselves are in fact local TV news stories, not the national side, and even if it were, a national show such as TODAY, or anything of them would still be only trivial and casual news stories, as is this article here; looking at 10 pages of News all found both blatant and casual advertising, regardless of publication, because that's what the contents exactly were. The 1st AfD had several noticeable troubles about it, not only is that no one ever acknowledged the advertising concerns, but that we're quite obviously aware of such concerns now, and we easily have both policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT to delete it.

All of these sources only covey what the company would advertise about itself, not what a genuine news article would say, and hence we have churnalism. As it is, the history shows nothing but advertising-only accounts showing how the company was quite likely aware of this article since it bears such similarity to their own advertisements, that they would naturally enjoy this hosted advertising. Another note is the sheer blatancy of this existing since 2009 as an advertisement and it was noticeably removed and then the advertising would be added again, showing the sheer motivations and how we knew in 2014, but no one gave a damn to delete it before it caused worse damages. SwisterTwister talk 18:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the general national news sources, published over a period of 9 years, already cited in the article. Though I agree most of the article is made up of cherry-picked information from the news articles. It's not unsalvagable, though I see the article has had some input from the MySupermarket PR dept. No-one would deny (apart from MySupermarket staff) that the article is currently badly written and unbalanced. Sionk (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent to my comment I have corrected the percentage claims, added a "Reception" section [30] to the article, removed a clear marketing statement [31] and removed the minor, unsourced events from the timeline [32],. In my view the article now conforms to the acceptable standards of similar, reasonably written articles on Wikipedia. The claims below that on-one will improve the article were untrue at the time and continue to be untrue. Sionk (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Sionk's assessment. Article needs a big cleanup, and there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources for Wikipedians to do just that. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Source examples include, but are not limited to, those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you think so, edit it and then we can see. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete. it probably is notable, but its an advertisement. If anyone thingks it salvagable, I challenge them to salvage it. Icna't--there isn't enough of substance to write about. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regardless, none of this is satisfying policy WP:NOT as (1) the ABC News links are in fact local news stations, not at all an independent source as it's only localized information and naturally to advertise locally and it shows "The company offers, the company days today, etc.), and the other links repeat this also L, showing only one person would've authored it, the company itself, even worse so, because it's only advertising localized services. The TC is literally labeled "information by the company" so yet another non-independent source.

All of this violates WP:NOT because it clearly states "Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue or web host of business services" and that's exactly what it is. Especially since TC is notorious for republishing company information, especially the fact it's caring to focus only "company-supplied finance goals and plans", yet another sign it is not independent. Even take one of the links that literally says "Company wants to revolutionize it", no one gives a damn about that than the company itself. The next ones literally say "You need to try MySupermarket and it's services" and "Listen what the company says about itself".

Another is the fact all of this are actually specialized local PR trade publications, including Daily Mail which is notorious for any local for republishing whatever it pleases. Basically the only genuinely major source is the Guardian but even that one, regardless of it being national, is still vulnerable to PR and it has in fact published it before. An example is:

Either way, if you do a regular supermarket shop - particularly if you shop online - mySupermarket.co.uk, which claims to save users up to 20% on their weekly shop, is at least worth a look....By accessing data that is updated daily from each of the supermarkets' own websites, this independent and free service can not only tell you which is the cheapest supplier overall for your entire selection of products, but can also suggest ways of reducing your bill at your chosen supermarket by substituting other goods to get a better deal....Unlike the supermarkets' own websites, mySupermarket.co.uk also lets you adapt shelves to shop by brand or type.....it's cheaper per 100g to buy a pack of 12 Golden Vale Cheestrings Twisters at £2.98 or a pack of 16 at £3.78 (the latter is cheaper by 5p).....potentially save up to £28 more.... Later this same paragraph goes to "The company businessman says...." and finishes with "I'll be using their services again!" (how could that never be PR if it's not only closing with it, but also closing with a company quote!)

None of the keep votes have acknowledged WP:NOT, instead going with general guidelines, and they are simply not the same. When we start ignoring policy, we're damned. Now, given this, not a single one of those sources is genuinely national or international, explicitly without company quotes and company-supplied information, because there are none. When we literally start citing local TV station news articles, it shows no one actually cares but the company's own advertising agents! SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an run-of-the-mill service; I don't see notability or significance here. Receiving $13M in investment is chump change as these things go. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources provided by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). MySupermarket received a substantial review in The Guardian and significant articles in The Grocer. MySupermarket, which is based in the United Kingdom, also received detailed articles in the American TV station KABC-TV and the American news website TechCrunch, which demonstrates it has received international coverage. Per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, that the article has some surmountable defects does not mean it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - As simply a note, no one at all has actually made substantial improvements to this, showing no one has actually cared to make them, and it cannot be confused they will even happen later if not now. Also, the Keep votes are still either saying "It needs improvements only" or stating general notability, instead of actual policy, which explicitly allows removal of this. The only changes being made here are cosmetics and not actually fixing the concerns, therefore we cannot fix a blatant advertisement by simply rewording a few things (essentially confirming no meaninnggul improvements) since the concept is still advertising, regardless. There is no different path to word their "services and clients" section without it dtill beg advertising. When we willingly start to accept advertising, we're damned. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, this is an 'Articles for deletion' discussion, not an 'Articles for clean-up' discussion. There are some fairly simple steps to take to remove PUFF wording and add a bit of balance. I've already done some of that myself. Sionk (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTPROMO is a good reason for deleting the article and hey, it is part of a policy (unlike the essays people are citing). The article consists of a massive amount of promo content (sourced to a bunch of redressed PR material) and a link dump which is contrary to WP:ELNO. Considering that nobody in this AFD has bothered to clean it up, I suggest we go with a delete. (As a matter of fact, I have seen a recent influx of editors using these trashy articles as models and then trying to emulate these, leading to a host of bad content.) The other reason for deleting is that the sources are not good enough to satisfy WP:CORPIND. You gotta be kidding me if you believe this satisfies WP:CORPIND and WP:SPIP. The other sources are also not good enough - The Grocer is an employee talking about the company, Goodhousekeeping is an initial review by an university student, The Guardian reliable source, but again, an initial review, Marketingweek again employee talking about the company, Techcrunch is again the CEO talking, Campaignlive is a trivial news about a merger/aquisition, ABC 2 is again an employee talking about the company, ThisIsMoney (part of DailyMail) is a tangential mention in the context of another company. Sorry, but these sources are not good enough for WP:CORPIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one will attempt to clean the article up until this AfD is concluded. So to delete it because it hasn't been clean up is getting the argument a bit back to front. Sionk (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We simply can't have promotional content on Wikipedia per WP:NOTPROMO, and this one is about a non-notable company. An AFD remains open for like 7 days and is usually relisted once or twice (making it 14-21 days). That provides sufficient time to demonstrate notability and improve the article. Btw, there was a previous AFD (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySupermarket) and it seems like no one bothered to clean this up that time as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Keep' voters each argue (with evidence) that notability is demonstrated and I, for one, started to improve the article. We'll have to agree to disagree, rather than throwing polarised opinions at one another. Sionk (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion could benefit from a re-list to generate further debate. st170e^talk 01:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lemongirl and DGG. WP:NOTPROMO controls here and this article fails it. I would note to Sionk (talk · contribs) that it is absolutely common practice to cleanup an article mid-AfD in the interest of saving it. I've seen it done many times and done so at least once myself. Even if the article is deleted anyway, the rewrite can be the basis for a future article if more sources become available. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very Kafka-esque and smacks more of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I find it difficult to understand how different experienced editors can draw such diverse conclusions. The article is easily salvageable, but I've no connection or particular affection for mySupermarket so if it gets removed then so be it. Sionk (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To state the obvious, this AfD has been going for nearly a month now and all any Keep people have suggested is "Let's improve it" yet no one has, even while this AfD is happening and hence is instead quickly becoming Delete. WP:NOT policy is not negotiable with such company advertising, as we know, and the fact apparent improvements aren't helping, emphasizes it. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect that's plainly not true. The 'keepers' have said the subject passes WP:GNG, which is Wikipedia's major tenet. There's no requirement or obligation for people who 'vote' keep to clean up the article immediately (or at all). Otherwise there would be hardly any progress at AfD. Sionk (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: WP:GNG is a guideline while WP:NOT is a policy. The latter trump the former. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The major consideration at AfD for as long as I've been active here, has been WP:GNG. To be honest I'd challenge any of the 'delete'ers to actually point to which parts of this article are irrepairable. It's plainly not irrepairable. In fact the article is quite a standard, acceptable format of description, timeline and criticism. Sionk (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we consider 2 years ago, that itself is not an explanation for not deleting now, especially since we're harder with spam now. That said, this current article has absolutely no criticism at all, only company financials, activities and itshows company plans. That violates WP:NOT's "Wikipedia is not a place for YellowPages-esque company information such as its own company specifics" hence policy. As for the article issues, they've been listed. SwisterTwister talk 08:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're evidently looking at different articles. It has criticism (add more if you can find it, without being WP:UNDUE of course). I've no idea what financials are. There's only a small paragraph about investments. How a company is financed is pretty standard info. Sionk (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sionk and NA1k - Article needs alot of improving however notability is certainly there, I see no valid reason to delete. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not showing how the relevant Delete votes have cited policy, what policy is higher than the one serious important one we have WP:NOT which explicitly states we are not a business webhost and can remove it. The sources themselves have been shown to be nothing but republished words and company notices, if that's all we have, why damn ourselves as a PR webhost? Supposed improvements are not relevant if policy states against it. SwisterTwister talk 00:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT doesn't trump GNG, GNG is the most important policy and well respected policy we have and IMHO GNG trumps NOT, You may believe it's a business webhost however I believe it's an artcle that meets CORDEPTH and GNG and IMHO is worth saving, I believe the sources are fine however there's tons more on Google News as well as Google Books, Thanks. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer - As shown at WP:NOT and WP:GNG, WP:NOT is still policy whereas GNG is a suggested guideline, as GNG itself states that it is not the foremost. NOT is still the first policy we ever started actually using because it formed what was explicitly unsuitable for WP itself. SwisterTwister talk 01:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is still the most respected policy here and trumps NOT, Also NOT is irrelevant here because the article isn't a blatant promotion - It's a notable topic and the sources prove that, Also being promotional isn't a valid reason for deletion because promo text can be copy-edited and immensely improved, Sources have been presented which are all notable reliable sources and are in-depth coverage so therefore should be kept. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just grab a bucket and mop this SPAM up. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! - One could use a mop and improve the article. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this article is though spam, therefore according to Wikipedia policies should not be retained considering theres no good revision without spam.Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree there's nothing spammy in the article, It simply needs tidying which if kept I would happily try and fix (I'm not going to improve it now incase it does get deleted. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:45, 20 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randi Sundquist

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

Sundquist was Miss Nevada. This alone is not enough to demonstrate notability. All the sources are from publications in the county she was from reporting on the one event of her being made Miss Nevada. One of the sources is a PR piece plain and simple. My google search for additional sources came up with a Linkedin article, an add page about her from her current employer, and not really anything else. Nothing to demonstrate that she is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was originally closed as no consensus because there is a lack of Wikipedia consensus on the matter on December 6th, after I presented some issues to the closer, and another editor argued that these should be considered on a case by case basis, the administrator who closed gave permission to reopen this discussion. I primarily state this so the time frame when this discussion has actually been open can be clearly seen. It was closed from early December 6th (about 7 GMT) to about 14 GMT on December 9th.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 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 01:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:17, 14 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. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 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 redirect to Miss Delaware. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Mitchell

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

Mitchell's only claim to notability is being Miss Delaware. This is not enough to establish notability. The article has what looks to be an impressive list of citations. However about half of them are beauty pageant PR releases. Others are name droppings related to her being a sub-state level teenage beauty pageant winner. Even the sources on her being Miss Delaware are largely those from her local paper. My google search came up with nothing substantial to show that she is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. MMall124 (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion was originally closed as no consensus because there is a lack of Wikipedia consensus on the matter on December 6th, after I presented some issues to the closer, and another editor argued that these should be considered on a case by case basis, the administrator who closed gave permission to reopen this discussion. I primarily state this so the time frame when this discussion has actually been open can be clearly seen. It was closed from early December 6th (about 7 GMT) to about 16 GMT on December 9th.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 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 01:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She has a number of sources from reliable secondary sources, but being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- insufficient claim of notability with a state level pageant win. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Delaware, mentioned there. SST flyer 15:01, 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. Plenty of sources cited. Unfortunately, nobody agrees that they establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Kelley

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

Kelley was Miss Nevada. This title is not enough on its own to establish notability. The article creeps through low finishes with extremely local coverage. The coverage of her Nevada win is still all local. My search for more on google came up with articles that said things like "Kelley might make headlines as Nevada's first top 10 finisher" when the competition had not begun yet. At this time Kelley lacks long lasting or permanent notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was originally closed as no consensus because there is a lack of Wikipedia consensus on the matter on December 6th, after I presented some issues to the closer, and another editor argued that these should be considered on a case by case basis, the administrator who closed gave permission to reopen this discussion. I primarily state this so the time frame when this discussion has actually been open can be clearly seen. It was closed from early December 6th (about 7 GMT) to about 14 GMT on December 9th.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 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 01:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has a number of secondary sources, but being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- insufficient claim to notability with a state-level pageant win. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is another of deceased Dravecky's articles. The workmanship is superb. Note that Dravecky's talk page has not received notice of this AfD, diff. Unscintillating (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Review of the diff that added the AfD template to the article page shows that there is no edit summary to indicate that the edit was a desire to delete the article. Unscintillating (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some of the sources from the article, ignoring obvious primary sources.

Wright, Carol W. (February 23, 2012). "Sophomore Wins 2012 Miss UA Crown". Miss UA Scholarship Program. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama. Retrieved July 3, 2015.
Schiermeyer, Corry (June 28, 2012). "Whitfield Welcomes Intern from Madisonville to D.C. Office". Madisonville, KY: SurfKY News. Archived from the original on July 4, 2015. Retrieved July 3, 2015.
Clarke, Norm (June 27, 2015). "Miss Summerlin crowned new Miss Nevada". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Las Vegas, NV: New Media Investment Group. Retrieved July 3, 2015.
Katsilometes, John (June 28, 2015). "After Miss Nevada judging process, it's time to toast". Las Vegas Sun. Henderson, NV: Greenspun Media Group. Retrieved July 3, 2015.
Clarke, Norm (June 28, 2015). "Pageant Grumbles". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Las Vegas, NV: New Media Investment Group. Retrieved July 3, 2015.
Leach, Robin (June 29, 2015). "Teacher Katherine Kelley of North Las Vegas wins Miss Nevada Pageant". Las Vegas Sun. Henderson, NV: Greenspun Media Group. Retrieved July 3, 2015.
"Mojave High School geometry teacher Katherine Kelley named Miss Nevada". Clark County School District. July 2, 2015. Retrieved July 3, 2015.
Rogerson, Karis (July 3, 2015). "Madisonville native named Miss Nevada". The Messenger. Madisonville, KY: Paxton Media Group. Retrieved July 3, 2015.

Unscintillating (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are people complaining about me not notifying a dead editor? That makes no sense at all. There is a notice that the article is nominated for deletion. Unscintillating seems to be trying to find any minor point to disrupt the deletion process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is more coverage I found using Google news:

http://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2015/09/meet_the_3_miss_america_2016_c.html Coverage in Alabama prior to the 2015 Miss American pageant
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/nov/07/trump-would-be-a-poor-role-model-for-our-children/ Guest columnist prior to the 2016 US Presidential election
http://lasvegassun.com/vegasdeluxe/2016/may/11/2016-miss-nevada-america-bailey-gumm-its-sink-or-s/ End of reign as Miss Nevada 2015
https://www.unlv.edu/news/article/6-questions-miss-nevada Introductory bio and quotes from a "chat about her background and thoughts on education in America."
http://www.ktnv.com/positivelylv/get-free-pancakes-at-ihop-for-nationalpancakeday An activity as reigning Miss Nevada 2015 reported on an ABC affiliate
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/norm-clarke/bravo-air-frank-marino-s-fabulous-disney-wedding Pageant Grumbles (columnist blog) Coverage following Kelley's win, of controversy concerning Nevada residency requirements for entering the Miss Nevada pageant
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3231076/Miss-America-finalists-flaunt-figures-array-weird-wonderful-skills-pageant-s-preliminaries-finish-hotly-contested-swimsuit-talent-rounds.html International coverage from dailymail.co.uk
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mLg_eqhXkLIJ:http://photo.liputan6.com/lifestyle/aksi-cantik-kontestan-miss-amerika-2015-unjuk-bakat-2314899%2Bhttp://photo.liputan6.com/lifestyle/aksi-cantik-kontestan-miss-amerika-2015-unjuk-bakat-2314899&num=1&hl=en&gbv=1&prmd=ivns&strip=1&vwsrc=0 Google text-only cache of Indonesian foreign-language coverage, 1 of 7 listed the text states, "Miss Nevada, Katherine Kelley menunjukan bakatnya bermain piano saat ajang kecantikan Miss Amerika 2015 di Boardwalk Hall di Atlantic City, New Jersey, 8 September 2015. (REUTERS/Mark Makela)"
http://lasvegassun.com/vegasdeluxe/2015/aug/27/miss-nevada-katherine-kelley-packs-2015-miss-ameri/ In-depth coverage by Robin Leach

Unscintillating (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note As per User talk:DGG#Sierra Minot close, I have asked the closer to reassess this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Please let us know if you don't want to reassess this AfD. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My close was based on the apparent lack of established standards. I have no opinion on the individual article as such. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the workmanship may be superb, but the article still covers a non-notable subject. It contains copy such as:

"In 2009 she was a cast member of the Community Theater production of "Brighton Beach Memoirs".[19]"

This is trivia and a hallmark of a WP:PSEUDO BLP and should be correspondingly deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does WP:PSEUDO say is the remedy for the problem asserted? Is it deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Nevada The subject is not independently notable other than the pageant. However, in this case it is a comparatively recent event 1-2 years) and there may be a chance of coverage. I suggest a redirect at this point. If a few years later there is no further coverage, it can be delete permanently. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:31, 24 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 and redirect to Miss Colorado. MBisanz ^talk 22:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Dreman

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

Diana Dreman was Miss Colorado, but she gets very little notice for that. Just very local coverage, not enough to justify an article. Some of the coverage she gets is more novelty coverage because she is the first person whose mother was Miss America to win a state Miss America title. This is not enough to justify a free standing article on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion was originally closed as no consensus because there is a lack of Wikipedia consensus on the matter on December 6th, after I presented some issues to the closer, and another editor argued that these should be considered on a case by case basis, the administrator who closed gave permission to reopen this discussion. I primarily state this so the time frame when this discussion has actually been open can be clearly seen. It was closed from early December 6th (about 7 GMT) to about 14 GMT on December 9th.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been relisted in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions now that it has been reopened.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted in the absence of other notability factors. This is the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are the citations in the article:

"Miss Colorado prepares to hand off crown". KUSA. June 15, 2012. Retrieved 2013-04-04.
"A family affair: A passion to use pageants for a higher purpose". KUSA. July 18, 2011. Retrieved 2013-04-04.
"FIT LIFE: Miss America And Beyond". KKTV. December 30, 2011. Retrieved 2013-04-04.
"Power of the crown: Miss Colorado honors legacy, spreads cancer awareness". coloradocancerblogs.org. September 12, 2011. Retrieved 2013-04-04.
"CU Boulder student crowned Miss Colorado". KUSA. June 27, 2011. Retrieved 2013-04-04.
"Alumna and former Miss America Rebecca Dreman battling cancer with help of her family". University of Denver. March 1, 2012. Retrieved 2013-04-04.
"Heartbreak and joy as 2012 Miss America Pageant hopefuls arrive in L.V." Las Vegas Sun. January 4, 2012. Retrieved 2013-04-04. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Miss Colorado 2011". coloradoconnection.com. July 18, 2011. Retrieved 2013-04-04.

Unscintillating (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Ejgreen77 created this article here, but had not been notified of this discussion, [33]. Unscintillating (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets both WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO#1 for notability. The remedy for editors who believe that this topic fails our notability guideline is to merge the reliable material as a mini-bio to a suitable target article such as Miss Colorado. Unscintillating (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So you actually argue this should not remain as a stand alone article?00:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I stated that the topic meets two different criteria for notability. Unscintillating (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received significant coverage. SSTflyer 14:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which coverage is significant?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all the citations are either extremely local low quality, the Las Vegas one is extremely passing, others are University press releases or other forms of sources that are not 3rd party.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of the sources here are actually relevant to notability itself and still nothing establishes genuine substance for an article itself, because we're not inheriting her an automatic article because of participation alone, and by that alone, we wouldn't be sensibly applying notability how it works itself. The sources are simply trivial and simply calling them "sourcing!" is not alone a basis for acceptance. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So sources about the topic are not "relevant to notability"? Is that a contradiction in terms? Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Colorado I would have usually gone for a delete as the subject is not independently notable of the pageant (and about 5 years have passed since the event). But in this case I prefer a redirect. There is an incoming link at Rebecca Ann King (the subject is her daughter) and I think it is OK to keep this redirect as a navigational feature. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Weak, because there's a surprising number of incoming links to this page. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with a redirect, per Dennis Bratland -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Colorado. Add a note to the list that she was the first to whose mother was a Miss America, and Miss Colorado contains everything you need about the subject. The only reason these appears to be a lot of incoming links is the two navigation templates at the bottom. There's little article content that points here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Colorado. Add a note to the list that she was the first to whose mother was a Miss America - because, exactly what User:Dennis Bratland said.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. Fails WP:BASIC as the sourcing is trivial and in my opinion reflects on the event and not Ms. Dreman. I also don't see why a redirect is required and I believe it is inappropriate in this instance. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 26 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help and Support Center

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

This one-line permanent stub suffers from lack of notability and lack of contents. It is run-of-the-mill, not something that stands out and becomes notable. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seems to be some room for improvements [34], [35]. Usually we don't delete articles just because they are short. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMANUAL. And we do delete articles because they are not notable. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMANUAL is irrelevant. It says that Wikipedia articles are not in themselves instruction manuals, not that they can't be about instruction manuals. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And incorrect too. Manuals only contain manual-like instructions. You can cite a manual only when you want to write a manual. Otherwise, the only thing you get out of a manual for Wikipedia is passing mentions. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is a restriction on citing a manual it still doesn't mean that we can't have an article about a manual based on non-manual sources, such as the ones found by Vejvančický's searches. That's really not a difficult concept to grasp, so please try do do so rather than continue to argue about an utterly irrelevant policy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, blah, blah. Hypothetical nonsense nobody cares about. The truth is, the article has stayed a worthless one liner because it cannot possibly become anything else. Vejvančický didn't find source; he has found a lot of search engine hits and is doing a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument. Lots of trivial mentions don't make the article notable. If there was really something usable in those source, you two wouldn't have wasted time improving it. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I say "Blah, blah, blah, blah" does that trump your "Blah, blah, blah"? Let's discuss this like adults rather than get into playground name calling. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For once I actually agree with CL on this, I mean what more can you say about a Help and Support center? If 86.17.222.157 has some ideas, let's see a list of them. Why don't you take the time, 86.17.222.157, to make this page longer? WikIan -(talk) 22:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The searches linked above by Vejvančický find loads of coverage in independent reliable sources, showing clear notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my list about the sources below. WikIan -(talk) 23:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTGUIDE. Recently added sources continue to provide no evidence of notability on this subject. Ajf773 (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The external links in the article show significant coverage in sources from John Wiley & Sons, Peachpit Press, and Cengage Learning. How do they provide no evidence of notability? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how WP:NOTGUIDE applies here for it is not written like a guidebook or manual. Per WP:BEFORE the nominator did not check for reliable sources, even a quick Google book search reveals many. Simply because of lack of sources currently in the article is not a reason to judge notability of a subject. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Champion: I did check. All I find is passing mentions. This, this, this and this are not evidence of notability.

My nomination does not even have a reference to WP:NOTGUIDE but it does apply because 86.17.222.157 proposed improving the article with guide-like contents. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing of the sort. And none of the random web sources that you linked was found by the book searches that Champion and Vejvančický linked, so it still seems that you did not check those sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"And none of the random web sources that you linked was found by the book searches that Champion and Vejvančický linked". Wrong. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This obtuseness is getting extremely tiresome. Just look at the sources that you linked above and tell us which of them is a book that can be found via this or this search? Multiple editors are showing you where sources can be found but you persist in refusing to look there. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on the Vejvančický's first link and picked the first four search results. Codename Lisa (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And my comment, which you falsely claimed to be wrong, was clearly about Vejvančický's and Champion's book searches. It's very difficult to conduct a civil discussion when you don't take any notice of what anyone else says and wrongly accuse people of lying. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may be notable, but it would best be put here. This article was created in 2009 and has not been updated very much since then. If placed with a larger article, it may be updated more frequently. Additionally, I believe this feature was removed in Windows 10? It was augmented with the Help+Tips app in 8.1, and I can't find it anymore in 10. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. WikIan -(talk) 15:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a very bad idea. If this was simply incorporated into the list article (where, of course, it should be listed) any expansion would be rightly resisted as undue emphasis. I haven't used any version of Windows later than Windows 7, but whether this feature exists in later versions would only be relevent if this article was intended as a guide for users of current versions of Windows, which it is not. Notability does not expire, and we keep articles about notable topics. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, notability doesn't expire, but I'm positive it doesn't have notability in the first place. At least to justify it's own article.

The cited web sources only talk about a single bug! Is that what you want an article to state? A single bug? That doesn't justify an article, that is for a news article. There simply isn't enough to explain what it does or what to do with it.
The book sources include exactly one page on how to access it and how to use it (which we cannot put in the article do to WP:NOTMANUAL
One of the sources points out the anatomy of the help center, which isn't good article content
The Other source has a HALF a page on how to start the center, which isn't article content either. WikIan -(talk) 23:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it that you've looked at the 96 book sources linked by Vejvančický and the 6,650 linked by Champion? Or has Codename Lisa's role as the editor who refuses to engage with what other editors are saying in this discussion been passed on to you? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I did look at all "96 book sources", I'm pretty sure they would all say the same things that the first few sources do. How and when to use the Help and Support Center, nothing more. Furthermore, I doubt anyone else has access to all of these books and am willing to even say that no one will buy these books for the sole purpose of adding any feasible amount of information (which I'm sure doesn't exist) to this article. If you could come up with a list of items YOU would add to the article, I would be happy to read it. WikIan -(talk) 19:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quote "If there is no usable content, however, it may well be best to delete." You have not demonstrated what content is usable. WikIan -(talk) 21:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What content in the article is not usable? We don't delete or merge articles simply for being short. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! That's what I am talking about: Ignoring parts of policies, guidelines and essays that aren't in your favor! Yes, we do merge pages because they are short. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in my list above, 86.17.222.157, I DID demonstrate how your provided sources can not be used. YOU have yet to list how there IS notable information that can be used. WikIan -(talk) 19:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as not notable, per Wikipedia:Search engine test § Notability and WP:IMPACT. And let's not forget WP:SIZERULE that must be observed even in the event this article is kept. (A "Keep" or "no consensus" verdict in AfD does not make articles exempt to existing policies.) FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Search engine test § Notability, "On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability." Most of the hits from the book searches linked above are books published by reliable publishers, not the kind if noise that you get from a web search. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do I even need to mention it is not enough? I feel you are refusing to get the point. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not refusing to get the point, but simply refuting the arguments that have been given for deletion. Nobody calling for deletion here has given any explanation of how the very many books from reliable publishers with coverage of this topic do not constitute a pass of the general notability guideline. I would also add that WP:SIZERULE is a suggestion, and far from being policy. We don't merge articles simply for having fewer than an arbitrary number of characters. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refuting it for who? For me. I stick to my "Delete", thank you; you are clearly ignoring parts of policies, guidelines and essay that are not in your favor. That's all you have done so far, apart from attacking people and calling them a liar while at the same time preaching them about being an adult. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:58, 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 01:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor aspect of the OS, possibly redirect to something related. If nobody has bothered to expand this article in all these years, this indicates of how little importance it is to anybody. We are not a technical documentation for operating systems. Sandstein 12:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that "if nobody has bothered to expand this article in all these years, this indicates of how little importance it is to anybody" goes against the whole ethos of Wikipedia. What matters is whether the sources exist to write a policy-compliant article, not whether Wikipedia editors have chosen to grow it past some arbitrary size within some arbitrary deadline. Am I the only person here old enough to remember that this was proclaimed, and not only by Microsoft, as one of the most important features of Windows ME, but then pretty well universally ridiculed when people saw how useless it was? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The "further reading" section already demonstrates notability, and other types of sources are likely available, such as the one I just cited in the article. Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. WP:INHERIT. Just because a product is popular does not make its manual notable. What is there about the "who what when where why" of this manual that makes it interesting and notable? Are independent sources writing about its unique features? Was it the first online manual? No, I see nothing notable about this manual that is not really about the product it describes. RichardMathews (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:RichardMathews: Given your reasoning, I think the only way you could have made it clearer that you did not read any of the existing discussion on this page at all is if you had stated that outright. Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:43, 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 List of Autobots. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Flare (Transformers)

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

Minor fictional element from the Transformers universe. No evidence of any real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:31, 26 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]

Delete - Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 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 01:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots, per the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Lee

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

I looked for additional sources on Lee and found nothing that approaches being a reliable, indepth 3rd party source. The one source her is as much about Lilith Fair as it is about Lee, if not more so. There is no indication that she meets any of the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator that Stacy Lee doesn't seem to have the notability as evidenced by outside source coverage. Joyous! | Talk 21:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 07:03, 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 01:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is not enough currently to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:NOT applies which is all we need. 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eta Uso

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

A blogger who graduated in 2014, clearly a very able student but there's nothing here to prove he's widely known, or had a chance to develop a successful career. Most of these citations are to pieces of writing by him, or to his alma mater's website. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I politely disagree that 'Eta Uso' is not widely known. However, referring to an individual as whether being widely known or not, can also be based on perspective. To this end, I will say that though he might not be a household name when using a wholistic context, he is however popular in his country - Nigeria and I think this will suffice as well. He is widely known within the non governmental community, mostly as a youth and democracy activist and the articles in question, though mostly written by him, they have however been published on very popular and famous websites due to his notability. I will also like to add that his Twitter page (https://twitter.com/royaltyuso) is also verified by Twitter and this action by Twitter further speaks, moreso boldly of his notability. Based on this, I politely request you reconsider your request for deletion as the individual in question is a notable individual Sandynigerian (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to find some proof of this. If he is popular or important then there should be some secondary, independent coverage about him. That is the essence of Wikipedia's WP:GNG. Apart from the Bangor University magazine, everything cited in the article is by him, not independent. Sionk (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I have been able to come across an independent coverage. He is a popular activist and I was confident there will sure be proof to attest to this. Here is one of them Members of Civil Society Share Their Expectations For Edo State Governorship Elections. I will edit his page and attach this additional proof.

Sandynigerian (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not about him either, it's a short quote from him on a political website. Sionk (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Governorship elections, just like Presidential elections, are taken very seriously in Nigeria. And we will both agree that the coverage on Watching The Vote website focuses strictly on expectations from duly accredited Civil Societies by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). INEC is the sole body of government which is in charge of elections in Nigeria. Now to make my point; 1. INEC will not give accreditation to random individuals or organizations to monitor or observe elections in Nigeria, except you have attained a certain degree of influence and status in the society as it relates to election causes. 2. #WatchingTheVote (the website that independently featured him) is guided by the Declaration of Global Principles for Nonpartisan Election Observation (DoGP) and Code of Conduct for Nonpartisan Election Observers and Monitors. This is a very high level non-partisan body and they also do not seek and publish expectations from random individuals but from influential individuals and organization who have the clout to shape or dictate narratives by their words and action. In addition, and like I pointed out earlier, his popularity is in an uncommon sector (civil society and non-government) and as such, assessing him in same notability context of politicians or music stars will not be a fair assessment.

Sandynigerian (talk) 06:21, 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 07:30, 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 01:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG - Fails WP:GNG as there are insufficient neutral secundary sources about the subject. -- Taketa (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with User Taketa, as I have given significant evidence to the contrary above.. Sandynigerian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the wiki has since been updated with additional references since this discussion began Sandynigerian (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 of the references are about the subject and they are both from a university paper. All other are written by the subject or the subject makes a comment. That is not sufficient by far. There need to be multiple text specifically about the subject by reliable noteworthy neutral secundaire sources. I see not a single one. -- Taketa (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your concerns have already been addressed in detail in earlier discussions above. Sandynigerian (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your explanations and they are not a satisfactory reason to keep the article. The only way to change my opinion is by adding the sources I requested which you have not done so far. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 03:20, 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) 08:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Connor

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

Does not meet WP:GNG the only GHIT news articles I could find came from his own IPTV station Domdeparis (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found 3x RS articles - This ^[1] and, This here ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonp70 (talk • contribs)

References

Delete - Subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep I have researched him further and found a handful of independent articles - Romford Recorder, Barking And Dagenham Post and Braintree and Witham Times, I live in South London and all these 3 are substantial local papers that I have heard off and to be fair Essex TV is quite a strong brand locally and Jay being the brains behind the operation makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.140.172 (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having also lived in London, I haven't heard of these newspapers because they're local and concentrated in small areas of East London (and Essex in the case of the latter). Sources need to be reliable and there needs to be a great deal of them. st170e^talk 00:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 06:49, 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 01:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources need to be independent of the subject and reliable. Clearly doesn't meet notability guidelines. st170e^talk 00:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have not finding enough for WP:GNG--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:30, 20 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 keep. Sandstein 13:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hirschtick

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

Simply nothing for actual independent notability and substance and it's enough to suggest paid advertising for this article, the company positions and achievements are not convincing as to automatically inherit him notability, the sources are not equally convincing either, thus this should not have been accepted at all. There is nothing that can suggest otherwise if we consider policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 17:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I feel he's notable enough, because he is a leading innovator in CAD software development (he created two great CAD systems), he awarded the prestigious CAD Society Leadership Award (as Autodesk’s Carl Bass, Dassault Systèmes’ Bernard Charles, and 3D Systems's Ping Fu), and ASME Leadership Award, also it is written about him in books (1, 2, 3, and one more translated to Japanese 4) and big journals (like Fortune and Wall Street Journal), there are movies about him ([5], [6]), and there are many pages link to this one ([7]). I am going to add more information about his achievements to improve the article. Ilya.lichman (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of those sources are not inheriting automatic notability for an article from anything or anyone else, especially if they simply consist of actual interviews, company quotes, republished company or businesspeople information, or that it was by a hired freelance journalist instead of staff (this is a case specifically for Forbes, which is notorious for it); also, there's policies in place for articles such as these, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this clarification, and thank you for your time! Am I right that books containing chapters about Hirschtick is a sign of his notability? For instance, in the books "Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures" and "The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship Case Studies" there are chapters about him. Ilya.lichman (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – An article from Design & Motion (April 2015) refers to Jon Hirschtick as "CAD royalty", in the setting of a Develop3D LIVE conference where he co-presented with Carl Bass of Autodesk, who has a Wikipedia entry. See: https://designandmotion.net/news/jon-hirschtick-loses-onshape-to-carl-bass/ Skydog10291971 (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being "royalty" is by all means vague and is not an instant inheritable for notability here, especially when policy is involved. This comment above has no policy-based comment, unlike WP:NOT which is. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 06:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an article about Hirschtick in the Wall Street Journal - In Cards or Business, Act on the Advantage. In the article Hirsctick said, how he learned about card counting while a student at MIT, and also he described the business lessons he drew from his time playing cards. May be blackjack is not serious enough topic, but it seems that an article in Wall Street Journal about Jon Hirschtick is serious enough sign of his notability. Ilya.lichman (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons other Keepers have noted. I am surprised it is even an issue. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a policy-based comment? See WP:PERX. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More comments needed please. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the claim of notability is quite strong as creator of two CAD software breakthroughs, funded by the $1 million he made as part of the MIT blackjack team, all backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's not automatic inherited notability from the fact he founded software, we could then accept any other article with the sole basis of "he founded multiple sofwares" but our policies explicit state against this, and with good meaning. Also, the fact he was funded by an MIT team is also not automatically inheriting him notability. Unlike anyone else, I would actually say we have paid advertising contributions here because of the fact of not one SPA, but two now by the fact a second user has now started, and we've established as it is this can only mean advertising-involved, certainly not "coincidentally active users with the same one article". Simply look at each source, it's about the software itself (Fortune: Funding support, WSJ: Mere mention, Forbes: By a "special contributing journalist" (which basically means he was a freelance journalist, a job that is easily bought by companies for PR). When an article then has to end with simple sourcing (see #15-28) as mentions, it shows the sheer attempts at coatracking and overbloating the article with anything to make it seem "genuinely substantial", when it's not, and policies explicitly state this. When we ignore policies against advertising, we have no hopes for an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hirschtick didn't "inherit" anything from the software he created; he is notable because he created the software, as he is for his involvement in the MIT blackjack team. That one funded the creation of the other only adds to the claim. When we have single editors turning themselves into judge, jury and executioner, shouting and screaming increasingly bizarre and irrational conspiracy theories to claim that any and all sources are "advertising", regardless of the source, we have no hopes for an encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SwisterTwister, thank you for the explanation "but two now by the fact a second user has now started, and we've established as it is this can only mean advertising-involved, certainly not "coincidentally active users with the same one article""! Now I can understand better how it looks from you point of view. I hope it will be pertinently if I try to explain. I am a programmer in CAD/CAM company, and also I am a lecturer in a university ("Introduction to CAD/CAM/CAE" for students of 5th grade). Half of a year ago I found that there are no any articles in Wikipedia about new system Onshape and about Jon Hirschtick who created Solidworks and Onshape. I was very surprised, so I decided to create both these articles. One month ago I found that the first article was created, and that it was temporary in the list of Articles for deletion. So I started creation of the second one article via Articles for creation (to avoid mistakes of beginners). It was accepted, and two hours later you put it into the list of Articles for deletion. I absolutely agree with you that my text is not perfect, that sources must be improved. And now I can see why do you think that my article looks like a spam. But on my talk page you can see that I asked the author of the Onshape article to share his expirience about all these deletion things. And it seems that only after it he decided to rewrite part of my text. I hate spam too. But I am interesed in CAD/CAM/CAE/PLM, so I am trying to improve Wikipedia in these areas. Ilya.lichman (talk) 12:32, 29 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 Miss Tennessee USA. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Brown (pageant titleholder)

AfDs for this article:

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

Brown was Miss Tennessee USA and Miss Tennessee Teen USA back in the 1980s. This article mainly demonstrates why such is not ground for notability. It is primarily sourced to her small hometown newspaper. 30 years later we know absolutely nothing about what she has done over the last 30 years. My search for sources came up with nothing showing any notability. The previous keep was largely a result of an unwillingness to consider the cases on their merits, but instead going to a knee jerk position that just because the title is claimed it is important. In the case of Miss some US state that is not the case, especially with multiple competing beauty contests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 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 01:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:NOT applies yet again, regardless of anything. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 14:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Tennessee USA, mentioned there. SST flyer 14:55, 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. Cerebellum (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Hood

AfDs for this article:

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

Hood was bot Miss Tennessee and Miss Tennessee USA. Neither of these titles on their own is enough to make one notable, so the combination of the two titles does not make one notable either. The sourcing is just not there and my search for more sources just showed up lots of blog type sources, nothing reliable. The article has major sourcing problems too. Her marriage is sourced to basically a paid wedding annoucement, but it is more an unpaid posted on the internet one. The sourcing does not establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 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 01:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still a pageant membership is not significant for actual notability as a whole. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Tennessee USA, mentioned there. SST flyer 14:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a WP:PSEUDO BLP on an unremarkable individual. I don't see a need for a redirect as the name is unlikely to be a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 20 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. Cerebellum (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Guerrero

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

Guerrero was Miss Texas USA. The only source that seems to have taken note of this is a paper in her hometown of Lubbock. The other source in the article is just listing her as loosing to another competitor for Miss Texas USA in another year who that paper took localist notice of. This is not a position of lasting significance. My google search did not turn up any additional sources to add toward notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 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) 03:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial information for a local pageant member. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 14:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Texas USA, mentioned there. SST flyer 14:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a WP:PSEUDO BLP on an unremarkable individual. I don't see a need for a redirect as the name is unlikely to be a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 20 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) 08:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Culberson

AfDs for this article:

(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 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

AfDs for this article:

(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 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. --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 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 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

AfDs for this article:

(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) [36]), 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 [37] 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. ([38] 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. [39], [40], [41]. --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. 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. 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.

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. Closing early per WP:BURO. Nomination does not appear to have been made in good faith. (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016_South_Korean_political_scandal

Because she is not decision settlement, it should be delete she is arrested of news.--DeleteDelete (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and SNOW CLOSE. Nomination not made in good faith. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 10:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : this proposal is non-sense. This user is blocked on fr.wikipedia.org. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 11:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This news worthy, major. Telecine Guy (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: We may wish to merge and break up some of the articles around this topic, but I suspect the user is trying to push an agenda. -- Kndimov (talk) 03:25, 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.

[1] Frank, Dana (March 9, 2015). "Just Like Old Times in Central America". Foreign Policy. Retrieved December 14, 2016.

[2] Sports Illustrated 2009

[3] ttps://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-10-17/debates/0D10F53C-7241-46AC-88CD-BD91964FADE2/UKExitFromTheEuropeanUnion

[4] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36593120

[AoL-5] "Turns out there are 'no current plans' for a British independence day on June 23". Aol. 17 October 2016.

[6] "UK Exit from the European Union — [Phil Wilson in the Chair]". TheyWorkForYou. 17 October 2016.

[7] "Tory MP calls for 'Independence Day' Brexit bank holiday". The Telegraph. 25 October 2016.

[UK_Parliament:_Parliament_debated_this_topic-8] "Petition No.: 123324 - The 23 June should be designated as Independence Day, and celebrated annually". UK Parliament. 23 June 2016.

[BBC:_Petitions_debated_on_Monday-9] "What happens when a petition gets debated in Parliament?". BBC. 18 October 2016.

[Yahoo:_Speaking_in_a_Westminster_Hall_debate-10] "'No current plans' for a British independence day on June 23". Yahoo! News. 17 October 2016.

[11] ttp://www.worldcat.org/title/american-mythmaker-walter-noble-burns-and-the-legends-of-billy-the-kid-wyatt-earp-and-joaquin-murrieta/oclc/894140203

[12] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=YFbZBgAAQBAJ&pg=PR4&lpg=PR4&dq=%22mark+j.+dworkin%22+american+mythmaker&source=bl&ots=OKfeu1E20M&sig=ezViMF8JBlRLIEwK07_clk_CPtk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZhaL78MfQAhWBNSYKHcbZCEoQ6AEISTAJ#v=onepage&q=%22mark%20j.%20dworkin%22%20american%20mythmaker&f=false

[13] ttp://www.barnesandnoble.com/enwiki/w/american-mythmaker-mark-j-dworkin/1120744013

[14] ttp://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/romford_male_chat_show_will_use_banter_to_tackle_issues_1_4715617

[15] ttp://www.harlowstar.co.uk/former-king-of-rwanda-visits-harlow-for-essex-tv-film/story-29502687-detail/story.html

[Ash2003-16] 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.

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

[18] 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.

[19] 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.

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

[21] "92 News HD". 92newshd.tv. Retrieved 12 December 2016.

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

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

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

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

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]