Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 January	23 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Yarab Tso

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

The text is just a presentation of an hotel, whose notability isn't clarified. pt:Stegop ^talk 04:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge into Tegar. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Notguide and Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. Hotel exists, but does not appear to have received the kind of coverage necessary to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Has no historic significance, no references to suggest otherwise. KDS4444 (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is adequately sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notguide; no encyclopedic relevance, merely a hotel description, which can as easily be found on the hotel's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply a business listing and travel guide, of which we're not, regardless of what exists. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland at the 2015 Games of the Small States of Europe

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

No content besides saying the country competed at the event (which can be found on the main article). Also the page is unreferenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the following for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Articles serve no purpose other than redirecting to sports results. Ajf773 (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because an article is almost empty does not mean that it can't or won't be expanded.--Snaevar (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Snaevar (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and improve the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nominator. This information can all be found at the main page for the event by year, there is no need to have separate articles for each country each year. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment: @PMC: I am fine with you voting delete but you are making false claims here. In the time between the nomination of the Icelandic article until you voted the Icelandic article has specified 15 medallists. The claims the nominator made are now incorrect and your comment of all the information being available on the main page is completely false.--Snaevar (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to slightly re-word: "This information ~~can~~ should all be found at the main page for the event by year, there is no need to have separate articles for each country each year." Seriously, we're hosting all this information three times - at the main games by year article, at the country by year article, and at the sport by year article. And then lather rinse repeat for every year the games occur? Totally not necessary. There's gotta be a clean way to do this all in one article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all – pointless articles; nothing but an unseemly list of redirects. Laurdecl ^talk 09:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Article is basically a link farm with a 2-sentence Lead. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:02, 8 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pele Bhattacharya

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

No reliable sources in article. Google search shows social media hits and a Wikipedia fork that copies speedy deletions. Google search doesn't find reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear misuse in a business listing with the sources being as trivial and unconvincing as the article, nothing accepted in our policies. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no involvement in any notable films Spiderone 15:02, 22 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Express

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

This article is merely about a bus service that only operated between Hyderabad city and its airport. That too, the service is no longer operating. Normally, such information is contained in the "Access" section of airport articles, and this article's subject has been mentioned – honestly, I don't feel it is notable enough to have its own entire article. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that a summary would normally be found in the airport article, that doesn't mean we can't also have a more detailed article on the route if there's enough sources and content to support one. In this case the subject seems to have been covered by multiple national news sources, so it would appear to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.79.125 (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to the airport article per WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 16:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I realize that there is some coverage in the news, but it's mostly routine stuff like "hey here's a new bus line," "we added a stop to the line," "we cancelled the line oops". I don't know that that really qualifies as being in-depth enough for the purposes of having its own article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Mighty Love

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

Sources are all WP:PRIMARY. Chart performance for Aleyce Simmonds version is chart that's on WP:BADCHARTS. Neither McCann's nor Herndon's version charted, nor did any version receive the kind of significant coverage a single would get. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from notable artists and songwriters. But as three artists recorded it, there isn't a singular redirect target, so deletion would be better Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Tim Nichols or Darrell Brown (musician). Independent release by several notable artists does meet WP:SONG criteria #3. However not finding significant coverage by independent RS still leads to a delete. The song is mentioned in the articles of two of the three co-writers. Possibly a redirect to one of those would be helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 29 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 withdrawn. czar 23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-Man Arrangement

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

Non-notable arcade game whose supposed claim to fame is a trivial name glitch. Search turned up no third-party sources, while article is written like a game guide and has remained unsourced since the day of its creation an entire decade ago. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 02:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Video games that are part of one of the most famous series in video game history, not only initially released worldwide in multiple regions, but also additionally ported multiple times to multiple consoles within multiple anthological collections are triply notable real-world products. While some of the detail within the article might be argued to be fancruft, the product itself is a clearly notable subject deserving of an article. Deletion should not be used as a substitute for cleanup, so the argument that the article is written poorly is only an argument that the article should be improved, not an argument to delete. —Lowellian (reply) 12:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pac-Man video games. Very surprised by the above rationale—articles are not presumed notable for being parts of a series, and in fact, many games in a series can be spin-offs or minor releases. The adequate answer is to cover the game in proportion to its sourcing, which the nom correctly noted that this game has none. It has been covered in some recent compilations, so there's the choice of whether to cover it in the PM Museum or PM Collection articles, but suffice it to say that that there is little coverage of this specific game, and that it can be covered adequately in summary style at the extended list article. @Beemer69, I recommend uncontroversially redirecting such articles to a list or parent dev instead of going to AfD—it saves everyone the time, as a title in a notable series will always be a useful redirect to wherever it is actually covered on WP. czar 20:11, 24 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Katz

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

Fails WP:Music and WP:GNG. Does not appear to have won important awards, have a significant following, have considerable coverage etc - any of the things that would be considered vital to establish notability. Rayman60 (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 6 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Barnhill

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

Article created by a COI editor, unelected candidate who ran for office, does not meet WP:NPOL and nothing in article appears to suggest he meets WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Candidate does not warrant an individual article, but should appear at North Carolina Senate election, 2016 and Michael V. Lee. There's a few sentences that could be usefully merged over, but that would mean leaving a redirect. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected state senate candidates are not notable. On the other hand we should have an article on Michael V. Lee, but I am not holding my breath. If he was a Democrat it would be created in a heart beat, but articles on Republicans are much slower to materialize.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single failed candidacy, no other notability apparent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a non-winning candidate for election to a state legislature — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable because of the election campaign per se. His can be mentioned in the relevant articles, but there's no reason for us to maintain biographical information about him beyond his name and vote total. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Coss

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

Fails WP:Music and WP:GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Rhythm guitarist and backup vocalist" says it all. Nowhere near notable for own article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:58, 22 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 and given that it keeps getting re-created and swiftly re-deleted, I'm going to salt it this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho Summer

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

This is the third AfD for this subject and, as far as I can tell, it still does not meet the notable standards of WP:NBAND and WP:ORG. The sources cited in the article are very weak, or fail WP:RS entirely. - Mr X 19:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:G4 + Salt - Article recreated after it was deleted following an AfD discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho Summer were listed on a country's official charts which is one of the listing on the notable criteria, there are many other media links, more than some other listings on wikipedia infact userrivalmanic 12.48, 15 January (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivalmanic (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only chart mentioned in this article (the UK New Releases Chart) isn't mentioned in the article about the Official Charts Company which publishes the British music charts. Thus, it doesn't seem to be a major chart that should qualify an artist for an article under WP:BAND criterion #2. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new release chart is a sub heading of the official UK charts, still a chart. extract from wiki notability.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. This certainly seems to qualify with the number of independent links. Rivalmanic 19.50 UTC 26.01.17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivalmanic (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're the creator of this article so you may not be totally unbiased in your views. I can assure you that the "UK New Releases Chart" is merely a sub-page on the Official Charts Company website that doesn't even list the songs in any sort of order - go and take a look - and therefore doesn't add to Notability for Wikipedia's purposes. I hope this clears that point up. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Light2021 (talk) 17:48, 27 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 Userfy. Moved back to Draft space. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campuzano-Polanco family

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

The family seems notable but I'm unable to find significant coverage confirming the information in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Meatsgains (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still in the process of being created. The sources will be added asap. Please be patient. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enion Glas (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a case of WP:BITE. Though the creator is encouraged to use Template:Under construction, the next time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I agree that this may have been nominated a bit prematurely. It is coming along, and seems to meet GNG as a family. Some of the individuals may be notable in and of themselves, as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to user space and encourage article creator to read WP:RS and pay particular attention to the need to source assertions in-line.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC) (Changed to Delete, see below.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per WP:REALPROBLEM. New articles should not be created in article space. We have sandboxes and the draft namespace for this purpose. This isn't 2004 anymore. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea about the sandboxes and draft namespace. Will use these tools for sure in the future. Apologies for any inconvinience guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enion Glas (talk • contribs) 01:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 25 edits were reverted without any reason. I put a lot of time adding realible sources so I at least expect reasons why you make changes

Also it has been a while since I finished constructing what the final article would look like and nobody has said anything. You are very quick to add the article to deletion but not to remove the deletion notice now that its fairly completed and sources added? I might not as experienced as you in wikipedia but please respect my time and effort a bit more. If this is the way you treat the new editors it leaves a lot to be said about the people running wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enion Glas (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My guess as to why your edits were reverted is because you tried removing the AfD template, which clearly states, "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed". I urge you to continue improving the page and adding reliable sources but do not remove the AfD notice. Again, had you drafted this article in your sandbox, you wouldn't have to worry about others reverting your edits. Next time though! Meatsgains (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the reason why I deleted the AFD template was because I actually thought that the discussion about whether to keep the article up had finished since the majority of vote said to keep it and keep improving it. Does the notice get automatically removed after a while or should it remove it myself? I have no idea on how to proceed. However, the 25 edits cannot be reverted automatically and seems like I have to do all the manual work again. Really? Penalizing a novice in this matter for his mistakes is not the way to keep new editors motivated and again says a lot about the "democratization of knowledge" that wikipedia sells to the world

Keep working at it. AfD is rough, and I'm sorry about that. I've restored the work that was reverted - leaving the AfD and under construction tags, hopefully that was the right thing to do (even I'm not always sure). There are no promises that your work on this page will ultimately be kept, you must always live with the unbearable lightness of being on a web page anyone can edit. But I am enjoying reading your work, and others are too. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Enion glas has mentioned on their talk page that they have pretty much finished editing the article and the under-construction tag has been removed from the article, so if you were waiting to discuss the page until it that point, it seems that it is now in a more stable state. I still think the article is suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is the family but this article is really a mishmash of biographies about 10 different people. Note how in House of Tudor most (but not all) the content is about the family, not just individual members. The fact that all members of the Tudors are notable themselves means that article could be a list. This article has no notable members so there's no claim of notability. The sources are almost exclusively in Spanish so it's not something I feel comfortable AGF'ing on. From the looks of it most of the sources are also primary sources and WP:GNG doesn't actually allow for primary sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The biographies are not of 10 different people. They are all the same family, with each generation producing a notable member. Some family pages have a more short style section based format to its presentation and some of them just include the links of their members. Ex.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essen_family. "This article has no notable members? Are you serious? It contains one of the two most famous/notable privateers of the Spanish colonies (along with Miguel Enriquez from Puerto Rico) and a heroe of the Battle of Cartagena de Indias, a very important battle, perhaps the most important in the history of Spanish colonial Latin America. It contains one of the few rectors of the University of Salmanca that were born in the Americas (criollo) and a distinguished politician in the metropolis of Spain named Procer del Reino by Isabel II, a very uncommon thing at that time for an american criollo not born in Spain. Out of this family comes Jose Maria Heredia, compared by some to be the Walt Whitman of Latin America. The sources are all legitimate and they can be translated for verification. --Enion Glas (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the article could be spun out into articles about many of the constituent individuals. If this were done, then an article, List of members of the Campuzano-Polanco family would be appropriate, even if this one were not. However, I could see an argument for interest and inclusion in this article some individuals that might not quite meed GNG (such as Francisco Gregorio Campuzano Polanco (1682-1750)); whose inclusion in this article would be appropriate; and whose inclusion in a list might not be appropriate. Can you list the sources which talk about the family as a group, rather than focusing on the individuals? I guess that Agudo 2007, Rodriguez Demorizi 1959, and Cassa 2013 (the first one of his cited, currently citation 17) do, is that right? What about the other sources? Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My intention from the beginning was to create an article about this family in more of a timeline format highlighting their main political, military or ecclessiastical merits. I could create perhaps an article in the House of Tudor fashion that Christroutman brought up, however it was not my intention to elaborate endlessly about the lives of each of them. If you would like to do so, some of the sources go over important epidoses of some of the character's lives.

Some families are quite extensive and it would make sense that cousins, distant cousins, half brothers, etc would have do be described on different links. However what distinguishes this family and makes it unique perhaps is that it is quite a small family, an each generation (not spread out branches, etc), which kept itself quite small if you notice, achieved notable merits. It is quite rare to find a family with so many merits generation after generation in the archives of the council of indies that you can access through archivesportaleurope.net. No other family from colonial Latin America has a hero in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias, where all of the naval captains where pure Spaniards and Europeans (not criollos from America), a politician that achieved so many merits in the metropolis of Spain AND one of the best and most famous poets of Latin America considered to be the first Romantic poet of America, for which of course I only highlighted his name since he already had an article. If you can find a family with members such as this please point it out to me since I would love to read about them. Most colonial families from Latin America just achieve a noble title for killing a bunch of defenseless indigenous people or finding a gold or silver mine. In fact I left out a bunch of small achievements and positions from the family members just to keep this article easy to read.

Rarelly will you find a sources where they talk about just one family member. Usually the case is that you find all the members mentioned together in an article or a book. Other sources where they mention all the family members or the family as a whole are

Utrera, Fray Cipriano de. "Dominicanos Insignes en el exterior. Pag 11". CLIO Vol. 33.

Utrera, Fray Cipriano de. "Heredia: Centenario de Jose Maria Heredia, Pag. 139". Editorial Franciscana, Ciudad Trujillo 1939.

Machado Baéz, Manuel. Santiagueses ilustres de la colonia. 2nd Edition, Santo Domingo, Ediciones Centurión, 1972

Francisco Gregorio Campuzano was a PRIOR PROVINCIAL for a big region of South America (all the West Indies and Venezuela). You dont think that is quite a merit FOR A CRIOLLO? Please understand that this is a criollo family and most of the positions/achievements that they obtained where usually reserved for peninsulars (Spaniards born in Spain) For this reason I do not think he should be left out at all.--Enion Glas (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you go to Google Books and type Campuzano Polanco you will find perhaps more than a hundred sources that talk about them and that I didnt include in the article. Sources in English and from different countries (Spain, Cuba, Venezuela, Santo Domingo)

https://www.google.se/search?biw=1366&bih=657&tbm=bks&q=campuzano+polanco&oq=campuzano+polanco&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.0.4028.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.serp..0.0.0.tE4LLJyhO-4--Enion Glas (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My intention wasn't to discuss the inclusion or exclusion of any individual in this article, merely to ask, as I said, if you could list the sources which talk about the family as a group, rather than focusing on the individuals? You are, I think, suggesting that for my answer I should check google books, which is not very specific, but ok. Thanks. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google books gives you lots of sources for them as a family yes along with the 3 sources I pointed out above being the most elaborated perhaps--Enion Glas (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was flagged by article creator to return to this discussion. Notice that none of the individual family members are bluelinked. And that many of the claims seem excessive (Private burial chapel of the Campuzano-Polanco: This interesting and unique chapel is the only one of its kind in America and one of the four vaults with astrological representations that exist today in the world, along with the Celestial Vault or "Sky of Salamanca" in the Univerisity of Salamanca, Chapel of the Benaventes in Rioseco and the Chapel of Osiris in the Hathor Temple of Dandera). given the present condition of the article and its sourcing, I cannot ivote to keep. Nothing that I see gives me condfidence that this meets our standards with respect to sourcing or notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I chose not to bluelink them for reasons stated above. No, the claims are not excessive. It is an interesting chapel and it IS unique. There are plenty of experts and sources talking about this chapel

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3047296?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00043079.1950.11407932?needAccess=true&journalCode=rcab20

https://books.google.se/books?id=hhNfVshMw64C&pg=PA721&dq=chapel+of+the+zodiac+santo+domingo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM8qDNpubRAhXCNJoKHYThBEoQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=chapel%20of%20the%20zodiac%20santo%20domingo&f=false

https://books.google.se/books?id=ZaoSAAAAIAAJ&q=chapel+of+the+zodiac+santo+domingo&dq=chapel+of+the+zodiac+santo+domingo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLgbLapubRAhXnYpoKHTO8Cwc4ChDoAQgeMAE

What exactly is that does not give you confidence? Everything that is said has its citations.

Either you are flaming me because I am new here, which in that case I can only say that dealing with all of you has been a disgusting experience to say the least. Not only do you embarrass yourselves by denying the obvious, which makes you sad negationists, but also you are giving a terrible image to this project and if I were running it, I would have taken away your administrator status for bullying a new editor that has put a lot of work on bringing interest to the colonial past of the Caribbean, which is a field that has not been studied much. Lot of information out there about the colonial past of Mexico and Peru perhaps, but not so much of the Caribbean

The article has had the deletion notice for 15 days now and nobody has given a fuck, which shows laziness and dictatorial disdain from your part. The only reason why you chose to write your lame ass comment was because I asked you to. I can also sense jealousy perhaps because this is a Spanish/Latin family with notable individuals as opposed to Anglo Saxon or northern European perhaps.

As I said the sources are there, these are not my words. Literately I have copy pasted the words of other historians here. Not my opinions, not my wishes. Only facts that are verifiable.--Enion Glas (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - large portion of the article seem, according to my poor Spanish, to be a close translation from: Ruth Torres Agudo, ‘Los Campuzano-Polanco, una familia de la élite de la ciudad de Santo Domingo’, Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos [online], Coloquios, Online 05.01.2007. URL : http://nuevomundo.revues.org/3240 ; DOI : 10.4000/nuevomundo.3240. The individuals in the article are clearly real, and writing about them as a family has some precedent. I still think that the article is in decent shape and represents a good contribution to the history of the Dominican Republic and its colonial era, an area which could definitely use more coverage. At the very least, I think some of the individuals discussed could themselves be suitable subjects for an article. If the consensus is to delete this article, I'd like to have the article userfied so that the material on some of the constituent individuals could be developed into articles. It could be userfied either to Enion Glas or, if they do not wish to do it, to my user space and I'll give it a shot. Thanks. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its fair to assume that most of the users commenting here don't work in Caribbean topics often, so I'm just dropping by to let you know that I have seen José Campuzano Polanco mentioned in literature about pirates and corsairs while working on the Roberto Cofresí series. These books were published at Puerto Rico, so at least one member of this family appears notable enough to have his name mentioned in foreign publications. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a close translation of the Ruth Torres Agudo paper. It uses the format that she used which is the format that most if not all of the authors that have written about this family have used as well- a timeline/short description/synopsis of the characters. However my article includes much more information about the origins of the family and elaborates a bit more on the battles they fought (especially with Jose Campuzano Polanco and the Battle of Cartagena de Indias which she completely ignored in her paper). She also left out the poet Jose Maria Heredia as part of her timeline for unknown reasons. --Enion Glas (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sources: Why is there a lack of trust about all the sources because they are mostly in Spanish? Again, I sense discrimination from some editors here that in a subtle way are saying "these sources are in Spanish, so they cannot be trusted". WHO THE FUCK RUNS THIS PLACE? Information comes in all languages. Perhaps it was my mistake to write this article in English if I knew all the arrogant anglo saxons were going to flame me. Should have written it in Spanish first, then I would have just translated it to English to please those that do not speak the second most spoken language in the world.

Regarding notability Some members have international notability- Jose Campuzano Polanco, Francisco Javier Caro and Jose Maria Heredia (who has a plaque at the Niagara Falls- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Heredia_y_Heredia#/media/File:JoseMariaHeredia-plaque-niagarafalls.JPG), Garcia de Polanco being one of the first miners who landed in America with Columbus. The Polanco family are one of the earliest settlers in the Americas which is a notable thing too.

Other members have regional notability- Francisco Gregorio being a Prior Provincial (the only Spaniard criollo from Latin America that I have read about who has achieved such a position), Francisco who became a Mayor in Venezuela and features in Venezuelan publications for his contributions there and Adrian who became a prominent political figure in Cuba.

Others have local notability which is where some of you miss the point. Pedro Perez Polanco for example is a notable and meaningful character in Dominican Republic for having defended the island in both the english and the french invasions. The Polanco family are among the earliest settlers of the north of the island. They might not be notable as world figures but they mean a lot to the island along with other captains. Saying that he is not is like saying "Oh, but he only matters in Dominican Republic, who gives a fuck about a small island history". Well, if it wasnt for him and a few others, the island becomes a english colony and perhaps that creates a snowball effect and then the whole caribbean is lost to England.

Other notable locals that should not be ignored are:

Garcia Polanco becoming Vicar General in 1660 is also very notable since that position was also reserved to peninsulars (spaniards born in Spain). Only 2 more criollo spaniards achieved such position in the colony of Santo Domingo that I have read about.

Franscisco Campuzano Polanco being a MAESTRE DE CAMPO is also notable. Only the Governor of the colony of Santo Domingo usually held this military rank, with very few exceptions.

Jose Campuzano-Polanco Morillo being Provincial Mayor of the Santa Hermandad is also a notable feat.

Again, as said in the article, they achieved the highest positions possible for spaniard criollos below being governors or archbishops which were positions that only peninsulars could have. This does not mean that the positions they held were held by many others. Only 2 max 3 other criollos held such positions also. If the editors commenting here knew more about the power structure of the Spanish colonies it would be a no brainer to highlight the notabilty of these local individuals and the exclusivity of these achievements.

The Chapel of the Rosary owned and reconstructed by the family IS unique in America and the world and is also notable. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3047296?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Regarding spltting the family into separate articlesThe timeline of this family is alsmot like a copy of the timeline of the colony of Santo Domingo, since the family was pretty much involved in every single meaningful event and period of it. Splitting the family into different articles completely misses the point of my article, which is to in a way use the history of a family and its genealogy to elaborate on important incidents of the history of the island that have been poorly studied and sometimes completely ignored even by the local people and historians of the Dominican Republic. The family was broken apart by the Treat of Basel in 1795 which forced all the colonial families of Santo Domingo to emigrate (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Santo_Domingo), basically wiping out 300 years out of the collective memory of the people who habitates the island today and putting the whole family in an article attempts to fill in major blank spots in the big picture of the history of the island. Please lets keep this family together in an article instead of splitting it, like the Treaty of Basel did, into unconnected characters without a common ground. --Enion Glas (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editors that want this article closed have gone silent after I have given them solid sources for the claims made here. Others now say "they dont have any views on the matter anymore". They have nothing to fight back now except to keep being negationists and giving wikipedia a very bad image. --Enion Glas (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to bludgeon editors and that's not how consensus works. This will probably close as "delete" and there's nothing you can do about it. Your ongoing rants only serve to alienate other editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have texted other editors in order to get them to contribute to the discussion and nobody seems to care which is why this article has gotten relisted twice. I on the other hand have done my best to keep on improving the article by adding new sources and replying to the comments and questions that have been asked. --Enion Glas (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - I've struck my keep !vote. Per WP:PRESERVE, I don't think the page should be outright deleted, given there really does appear to me to be enough information for at least one quality article and a few stubs. My suggestion to the page creator would be to use most of this article as an article about Pedro Perez Polanco (c.1640-1710) with mention of his notable descendants (as redlinks until turned blue would be fine). Additionally, pages about many of the other members of the family could be turned into articles. But looking at the references, the family isn't notable as a family in the same way that a noble house might be. As the number of descendants with pages grows, a template or category can be used to organize them (similar to Template:Washington family and Category:Washington family) - and possible a short article (but with much less information about any given individual, most articles about families are navigation aids usually with extended information only about a founding member). Enion Glas, do you plan to write articles about the individual family members, yes or no? Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smmurphy I think the format you propose is valid. However I believe Pedro Perez Polanco might not be ideal as the title of the article since the amount of sources about him is not as extense as the Campuzano Polanco name/family as a whole. The major source of citations is definitely google books https://www.google.se/search?biw=1366&bih=657&tbm=bks&q=campuzano+polanco&oq=campuzano+polanco&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.0.4028.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.serp..0.0.0.tE4LLJyhO-4-- and there you can see that Campuzano Polanco is what brings up the notability. I can red link some of the members I talked about in the Origins section of the article and write two articles, one about Jose Campuzano Polanco and another about Francisco Javier Caro. Jose Maria Heredia already has an article lwritten both in English and Spanish. None of the families from Santo Domingo achieved a title of nobility, unlike in Mexico, Peru and Cuba for example. The reason could be that both Garcia de Polanco, the first and founding member of the Polanco family in the island, and for sure as confirmed, Gregorio Campuzano, the founder of the Campuzano Polanco branch, were hidalgos before they arrived, which means untitled Spanish nobility. The fact that they had their coat of arms and their private burial chapel clearly confirms this. One thing I can guarantee you is that as a family, they are the most notable one in the colonial period of Santo Domingo, and I can take it as far as saying that they were the most notable and accomplished family in the whole Caribbean during the colonial times in terms of merits and longevity.--Enion Glas (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if I should go ahead and create the separate articles or wait until the consensus is reached. I dont want to spend time creating new articles if they are going to be deleted--Enion Glas (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can go ahead. I'd recommend you create the article in draft space or your user space; consider using the article creation wizard, or just call the article Draft:Article Name or User:Enion Glas/Article name when you create the article. Once you've got something you are happy with, you can move it to the mainspace or ask for help/advice (I'd recommend you have someone look over at lest your first couple new pages before putting them in the main space - WP:AFC is an official process for looking over new articles). For help/advice, you can ask at the WP:Teahouse or ask me at my talk page or you can ping me by typing {{ping|Smmurphy}} at any talk page, userspace page, or draft space page, or you can ask a question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk if you are using the AFC process.

Given the consensus seems to be against keeping this article as is, do you have your work saved locally? I'm not sure if the consensus is to userfy, so you might make sure you do in case this page is deleted. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but in all honesty I have no time at the moment to recreate the whole thing with all the sources. It is very time consuming and I have lost enthusiasm due to the poor treatment I have received as a new editor. I have seen terrible articles with a few poor sources here in wikipedia that are still up and probably havent even been listed for deletion before. --Enion Glas (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Marcus

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

Non-notable doctor who lacks RSes. Writes for Huffington Post blogs, but could not possibly meet GNG. DGG and SwisterTwister, this is a good article to compare with AfD at Kevin Pho. Delta13C (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not yet notable; none of the refs are substantially about her. The case for an article here here is much weaker than for Pho. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as thank you for the ping, everything here is unconvincing and complete with the AAAS because it's not a genuine Fellow, only for a specific section. Simply too soon, SwisterTwister talk 01:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is looks to me like canvassing, whatever the merits of the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as I try to see as many such articles as possible, it's just a question of whether I see it earlier or later. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of the other editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears non notable. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not arguing either way, but I'm not sure this is quite as clear cut as the above commentators note. She is one of 5/7 authors on reports of a clinical trial of bevacizumab (Avastin) which got 724 & 237 citations per GS.[1] Her single-authored opinion article "The silent epidemic—the health effects of illiteracy" in NEJM (2006) got 109 citations, and she's one of three authors on a study of informed consent & illiteracy (2013) which has 55 citations. There are also multiple pieces by her in several US newspapers/magazines eg, NYT, Huffington Post [2], The Atlantic [3]. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. When nominating editor writes, "Writes for Huffington Post blogs, but could not possibly meet GNG" as rationale for deletion, s/he should know by doing due diligence that the MD/MPH also writes for NYTimes, The Atlantic and has published a number of highly cited journal articles. She's also cited in a number of books per Google Books. She is most frequently published under "Erin N. Marcus". Hmlarson (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- could be a pass under WP:AUTHOR? Google books preview returns some citations to her articles: link. Some awards are listed, so in combination there appears to be some claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that she passes WP:AUTHOR, as her scientific work is not cited any more than many hundreds of other researchers. As far as I can tell, there is a paucity of secondary sources discussing her work, which leads me to believe that there is not enough coverage of her to produce even a basic biography suitable for WP. (CC K.e.coffman & Hmlarson.) -Delta13C (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was apparent when you nominated the article. The purpose of an AFD is for more editors to provide input. Hmlarson (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the point of WP:AUTHOR since it was not cited in my nomination. -Delta13C (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a figure of public interest who has contributed to a number of widely read sources. I do not agree with those who think it is "too soon" or with the narrow academic criteria put forward by some of the above contributors. As the article is expanded, the case for "keep" will become increasingly clear. The New York Times attribution "Dr. Erin N. Marcus is a general internist and assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine" is sufficient for me.--Ipigott (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Ipigott. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There has been canvassing for this BLP [4]. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

In fact, project notifications are in fact allowed and the standards for this state as such. As for the article, this is still a clear delete in my past comment because "interesting figure" is not what satisfies our policies and "narrow academic criteria" is certainly not the case because we ourselves have established WP:PROF is in fact the best coherent standard we have, selecting only the best academics and she's simply not satisfying it. Simply because the NYT mentioned she was an associate professor means nothing for us because it's not only a simple announcement, but an associate professor is in fact not actually tenured, instead an occasionally active professorhence not a major figure as stated above and also not satisfying our standards. If she was a major figure, there would exist actual substance for it, and like in the past, it would show she's a major figure in education, not the case here, and the Keep comments here above have not substantied themselves with the confirmation needed in substance. SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Erin Marcus is not a top-level scholar based on her publication record, which can be evaluated here. A quick scan of related scholars on that site reveal many that have over 10k citations who are also at her Uni, and these people do not have WP pages; Marcus has 774 citations. It is a complete distortion to view this assistant professor as a notable individual. She lacks compelling coverage in third-party sources and does not pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. -Delta13C (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Off to a good start in a very highly cited field of research but, as yet WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Not seeing enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and do not believe they pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. If she was the sole author of some of the cited articles, she would qualify, imo, but not as one of several authors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, Xxanthippe. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 6 February 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 with WP:SALT, although I am not opposed to unsalting in the event that enough are found to demonstrate that he passes WP:GNG at some later time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dauren Mussa

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

An article about the subject has been deleted three times. Does not seem to meet the GNG or WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. If deleted again, request salting. Miniapolis 01:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Lunacy

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

Amazingly, this has been here for over 10 years with no source other than a Facebook page. A search for coverage found nothing significant in reliable sources other than an album review in the Italian version of Metal Hammer. They had one album distributed in Japan by Victor, which may suggest some notability, but I think we need more than that to keep this. Previously kept at AfD in 2008 on the basis of releases and the fact that articles exist in five other language WPs. There are now articles in ten other languages, but they don't have a single reliable source between them. Michig (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The band's output seems to have fairly broad visibility in online heavy metal circles, according to Google (searching for "dark lunacy" review). Some years ago, there was a concerted effort to vet online metal review sites, which resulted in many of them being judged unreliable; I don't know what happened to that list and don't remember what was on it, but the band has attracted notice from sites such as metal-archives.com, Sputnik Music, metalstorm.net, metal-temple.com, chroniclesofchaos.com, metalreviews.com, metal.de, metal-rules.com, musikreviews.de, lordsofmetal.nl, and powermetal.de. That's an awful lot of international and polyglot attention for an Italian band, which, combined with the Wiki articles in ten languages, is at least a prima facie indicator that the group may be noteworthy. Are all of these review sites considered blogs or unreliable sources? The French version of the article is extensively footnoted with some of these reviews, and has sources noting international tours (and a DVD "Live in Mexico City"...). Chubbles (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 22 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Cartu

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

This article does not meet notability requirements to be on wikipedia. This page may be created by Josh Cartu himself or near people. This article is biased and inaccurate. As in the talk another user stated: "Additionally, buying valuable automobiles and taking them on rallies does not indicate notability" Cleanwikiweb (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - this is a poorly written article about a guy who seems to be good at publicity, if not racing cars. I'm not sure that this is such a mess as to require deletion for that alone. Since I know little about racecar sports, I'll leave the substantive debate to others. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. (non-admin closure) f eminist 13:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crankcase (Transformers)

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

Minor character(s) in the Transformers universe. Little evidence of notability. (Disputed prod.) Josh Milburn (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons. As stated by the nominator, this is a minor character with no sources that would indicate notability. The character is already included in the List of Decepticons, so a simple Redirect is all this needs. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons or delete. It's got a trivial mention in [5] from Newsarama, but the Google Books results are just novels. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:42, 3 February 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vedesh Sookoo

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

A biography of a singer that fails to establish notability. A google search provides no information to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Article created by WP:SPA with a total of 3 edits all of which are to this article. CBS527^Talk 20:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Searches find only trivial mention of the subject. Much more is said about the song 'Hunter' than it's writer. Gab4gab (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 26 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodie (software)

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

No indication of notability. Page creator has used WP:BOMBARDMENT to try to establish notability and stated on the talk page that The core hoodie project has had 59 contributors and 2000+ stars on github. I hope this shows General notability. This just shows people are using some code published to github. Nothing about this is notable. There are hundreds of thousands of packages on GitHub. Doesn't mean they all get pages on Wikipedia. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's my two cents: Not all Github packages should get Wikipedia entries, but some do i.e. the notable ones :-)

The work on beginner-friendliness and commitment to inclusion and diversity (as noted in one of the references) is notable IMHO.

Hoodie is a javascript package similar in size and notability as these packages (which have also have Wikipedia articles):

https://github.com/DmitryBaranovskiy/raphael/

https://github.com/chaplinjs/chaplin

Or closely related project

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CouchDB

Significant coverage - The WP:BOMBARDMENT was done in good faith to show that a number of different sources pointed to this being notable (and as general good practice to support claims made in Wikipedia). The references show "Significant coverage" with more than trivial mention. There are hits on Google Books & Stack Exchange and Hacker News (although not on Google News). That said, there are no books published entirely or significantly about Hoodie (AFAIK).

Reliable - There are a number secondary, independent sources cited.

Independent of the subject - The article excludes advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website (except for the link/logo where appropriate). Hoodie project is non-commercial.

I guess these things are subjective but my gut feeling was this project was really interesting (at least to me) because it breaks down barriers between frontend and backend of web design - thus helps more people easily create web applications. And that's important to know/notable for web developers and people interested in the web. And I was surprised there wasn't a Wikipedia article about it. I don't contribute much to Wikipedia in terms of edits (mainly because its coverage is so amazing!) but when I see a gap I do occasionally spend the time to fill it. --Fozy81 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It just about meets the GNG in my judgment. The Infoworld article cited in the article is a reliable source. This article from Sitepoint (who are a reliable source in my view - they have an editorial process, they publish books, are generally well-respected) and this tutorial from Gadget Magazine (similar). The opensource.com article used in the references also contributes to notability, although in a different way - in being about the community management side of the project. Opensource.com seems to be a reliable source - they have an independent editorial oversight process with named authors and editors, the authors seem to be reasonably knowledgable about the subject matter. Four sources, broadly reliable and GNG compliant. I'd agree that number of contributors or 'stars' on Github are not a measure of notability (hell, I wrote WP:NUMFRIENDS!) but the GNG is still met regardless. I'm also not keen on accusing new editors of WP:BOMBARDMENT. One should assume good faith. The citations listed in the article are not a measure of notability under GNG, nor does the presence of a larger number of citations than might be expected for an article of that length mean that it is an attempt to feign being GNG. (An article can be unreferenced and still be GNG compliant, or it could have 50 citations and not meet the GNG. Part of the point of an AfD discussion is to verify whether the article is notable under GNG or other notability guidelines precisely because the references—or lack thereof—don't immediately answer that question.) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 29 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) f eminist 08:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti in Toronto

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

I see nothing here to make me think that this passes WP:GNG. Much of the article chronicles issues with graffiti that are in no way peculiar to |Toronto. A brief trawl of what my library has on street art unearthed a 'world atlas of street art' which has nothing indexed under Toronto. TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Since Toronto is a most major city in Canada and we do have articles, like Graffiti in Russia, Graffiti in New York City, etc, nothing prevents Toronto from having the same article. It's quite well sourced. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's well sourced with local news items. There's nothing to establish that the Toronto graffiti scene is in any way remarkable. All of the content belongs in tha article on Toronto: there is graffiti in Toronto; some people think it's art and others think it's vandalism about sums it up.TheLongTone (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouls also point out that Russia is a country, not a major city, and that the graffiti scene in NY, like that in Philly, is-or at least was- truly remarkable. So, a bogus comparison . Not to mention WP:OTHERSTUFF TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I think the topic is notable. The article, not so much. It is filed under politics in the Toronto navbox, but I think there could be a good article if it was on the art itself. As a Toronto resident, I believe there is a thriving culture. It may not be on the scale of some of the US cities, but I've seen some outstanding work. This article seems to be by-product of the Ford era. If there is a place under an art article about Toronto, I would support a merge. As it is, though, not much of an article. I would be willing to work on improving it. Alaney2k (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of street art & would love to see this article expanded to have some real content about the work. I came to it via SuggestBot, but after doing a bit of copyediting on it I concluded that, as it stands, there was (a)nothing to suggest that the Toroto graf scene was remarkable and (b) nothing substantial about the scene.TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And otherstuffwise, I'm surprised that Street art in Bristol does not exist; a truly notable scene. So much so that there are several organisations doing guided tours of the appropriate alleyways.TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not written very well, but the subject appears to pass the general notability guideline. There is coverage in books such as this and this and in news articles such as this. Sources can be added to the article. Gulumeemee (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC) I added one of the sources to the article. Gulumeemee (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also found an academic journal article written about graffiti artists in Toronto. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets GNG per sources presented in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 29 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Delyth

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

At points I thought this showed signs of notability, but what looked like a review was on closer inspection a sales pitch from a shop selling her book etc. Very promotional, and under that she doesn't seem to meet notability. Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with rational: reads like a promo, and shows little if any notability. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see what would be left if we removed all the undesirable elemnts of the article, (self-)promotion, links to commercial sites, unreliable, related sources. There is no significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. What I miss most in this artist bio is a critical assessment of the work. Mduvekot (talk) 22:05, 22 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. Based on the comment from User:Timotheus Canens, I'm calling the articles below the horizontal rule WP:SOFTDELETE due to the minimal discussion they got. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 100 metre freestyle

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

Non-notable sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Also adding these for the same reason:[reply]

Please visit the AfD page for the full set of links for these articles.

Basketball at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional

Basketball at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's tournament

Basketball at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's tournament

Football at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 4 × 100 metre freestyle relay

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 4 × 200 metre freestyle relay

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's 4 × 100 metre freestyle relay

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's 4 × 200 metre freestyle relay

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 50 metre backstroke

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 50 metre breaststroke

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 100 metre backstroke

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 100 metre breaststroke

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 200 metre backstroke

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 200 metre individual medley

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 400 metre freestyle

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's 50 metre backstroke

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's 100 metre freestyle

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's 200 metre backstroke

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's 400 metre freestyle

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's 400 metre individual medley

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasionalb – Men's 4 × 100 metre medley relay

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasionalb – Women's 4 × 100 metre medley relay

Weightlifting at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional

Adding these:

Swimming at the 2012 Pekan Olahraga Nasional

Football at the 2012 Pekan Olahraga Nasional

2012 Bali-Nusa Tenggara Men's Pre-PON Tournament

2012 Sulawesi Men's Pre-PON Tournament

2012 Kalimantan Men's Pre-PON Tournament

2012 Java Men's Pre-PON Tournament

2012 Northern Sumatra Zone Men's Pre-PON Tournament

2012 Sumatra Men's Pre-PON Tournament

2011 Maluku-Papua Men's Pre-PON Tournament

Delete all – more examples of sports statistics spam that no one will ever look at. Laurdecl ^talk 01:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - not a notable enough competition to have these things. Smartyllama (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All non-notable sporting events per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Ajf773 (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin should note that the articles after the horizontal rule were added after the above comments. T. Canens (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left to dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:40, 22 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 Weightlifting at the 2013 National Games of China, Gymnastics at the 2013 National Games of China, Gymnastics at the 2009 National Games of China, Figure skating at the 2009 National Games of China, Figure skating at the 2012 National Winter Games of China, and Table tennis at the National Games of China; no consensus on the rest due to lack of sufficient input, with no prejudice towards their renomination for AfD. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weightlifting at the 2013 National Games of China

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

Non-notable sports event and violates WP:Sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the AfD page for the full set of links for the below articles.

Also adding these for the same reason:

Gymnastics at the 2013 National Games of China

Gymnastics at the 2009 National Games of China

Figure skating at the 2009 National Games of China

Figure skating at the 2012 National Winter Games of China

Table tennis at the National Games of China

Also adding the following for the same reasons and they are all referenced:

Weightlifting at the 1965 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 1975 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 1979 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 1983 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 1987 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 1993 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 1997 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 2001 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 2005 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 2009 National Games of China

Weightlifting at the 1959 National Games of China

Gymnastics at the 2005 National Games of China

Adding some more:

Athletics at the National Games of China

Athletics at the 1993 National Games of China

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China

Athletics at the 2001 National Games of China

Athletics at the 2005 National Games of China

Athletics at the 2009 National Games of China

Athletics at the 2013 National Games of China

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 4 x 400m relay

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 10,000m

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 100m

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 100m hurdles

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 200m

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 400m

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 400 metres hurdles

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 800m

Athletics at the 1997 National Games of China – Women's 1500m

Women's Heptathlon at the 1997 National Games of China

Delete, just like the other billion articles. Laurdecl ^talk 01:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These all follow an identical pattern to SvG's bot-created "articles" and should be blitzed before we have 18,000 of these to sift through. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for this kind of article. Smartyllama (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The National Games are the highest level sports event for 1.4 billion people. The competition standard there (in China's main sports like swimming, table tennis or weightlifting) is regularly at or above world championship level with the athletes themselves being said champions, Olympic medalists or world record holders. I don't think OP properly understands what the NG are or how prestigious winning them is. --Wlift84 (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really feel that an individual article for every single year's results is justified? Why not just add the results to a table in the main article (tables can be collapsed if article length is your concern)? Exemplo347 (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The NGs are a multi-sport event that is held once every four years, just like the Olympic Games. No, I don't think that subpages for every result is justified, but I also didn't create such. I made one overview page for one sport of a multi-sport event. This page shows the medalists, not all results. Weightlifting for example is divided into 15 events, I didn't create 15 pages (and don't intend to). As for putting every result onto one page: the NGs have 300+ events. That's too much I'd presume. --Wlift84 (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a results page. Maybe medalists but even that is pushing it. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Major multi-sport events have overview pages for individual sports. I only speak for the page I created, not every Afd listed. There's little difference to established articles like:

Weightlifting at the 2013 Southeast Asian Games

Weightlifting at the 2015 Pan American Games

Weightlifting at the 2005 West Asian Games

Weightlifting at the 2014 Asian Games

Weightlifting at the 2013 Mediterranean Games

The stated reason of "non-notable" is plainly wrong. Since the article National Games of China does still exists I presume it was deemed relevant years ago. --Wlift84 (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are international events, versus this (which is a national event). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would create a medalists page for all sports per year. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, but does the lack of internationality itself decrease notablity/relevance? If I'm comparing attendance and results of say:

Athletics at the 2011 Pan Arab Games

Athletics at the 2013 National Games of China

I'm noticing that the NG feature an equally high amount of relevant athletes (i.e. have articles) and results themselves which are sometimes worse, but especially for women plenty better (i.e. world level by international medalists). The reasoning currently given, a violation of WP:ATH, is not properly explained as that page does not directly address this topic. --Wlift84 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin should note that every article after Also adding the following for the same reasons and they are all referenced were added to this AfD after the above comments. T. Canens (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, Merge specific athletics events Far too many articles have been put up here and very little care has been given to both the nomination and the comments. I spent several weeks researching Athletics at the National Games of China. It is a key topic in the sport's history with multiple defining moments for the both sport itself and Chinese sporting history. There are multiple sources of high repute. The same can be said of Athletics at the 2013 National Games of China and the like, which was a major competition that produced nationally historic moments by some of the world's best athletes. I'm less of a weightlifting expert, but the competition between multiple world record holders and Olympic champions should say enough.
The idea that even comment on the medallists at these competitions "is pushing it" demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of both the topic and its relevance. The Chinese Games don't get a lot of coverage in English due to systemic bias, not due to any lack of actual relevance. There is a reason why all the most important Chinese figures from the President downwards are present at these games, as are all their top sporting figures. Needless to say, I also would have appreciated a heads up that several weeks worth of my work was to be deleted, rather than coming across it completely by chance. SFB 00:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:23, 29 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Oikonomidis (violinists)

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

Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. He has some records in the discography, but the only record company I've found is Oikonomidis MUSIC, presumably not a major record label. No indications of anything else that makes him notable. Sjö (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd like to say Merge or Redirect, since there seems to be some non-RS which might indicate minimal notability, but there are no obvious targets to redirect or merge to. Only significant coverage appears to be in one blog-type article and a bio on a related artist's web site (the non-RS). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the result is "delete" then the dab page Nikos Oikonomidis should be deleted as well. It only lists this violinist and a painter of unknown notability.Sjö (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.discogs.com/artist/1945496-%CE%9D%CE%AF%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%82-%CE%9F%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%AF%CE%B4%CE%B7%CF%82--Samizambak (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because anyone an add anything they want to Discogs, it is generally not considered a reliable source of information. Thanks for the information, though. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiqah Shasha

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BIO. i could not find significant coverage. In the last AfD, none of the keep voters actually gave coverage. Also links to very few articles LibStar (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails the WP:GNG. I couldn't even find an independent source confirming her existence, let alone significant coverage. The only source listed is Lucknow - A Veritable Goldmine, a book about a town that doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article. There is nothing about her life that suggests more/better sources are likely to be found. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Lucknow: a small village approximately 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) east of Orange.[10] It is a historic mining town with small residential, small industrial and commercial with most being farmland.", from wikiarticle on Orange, New South Wales, that exists, so could have an article, just saying. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:22, 29 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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roxley

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

An unremarkable board game publishing company going about its business. Significant RS coverage could not be found. One source listed refers to a Kickstarter campaign which suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this company to be included in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any RS coverage, and very little unreliable coverage, so it appears as though the company's not well known anywhere. Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Santorini is likely notable (plenty of reviews, some in reliable sources) and the game is reasonably highly ranked at boardgamegeek. Super-motherload has less in the way of sources (but still some) and is similarly ranked. Dicetower did an interview with the company ([6]). None of that is hugely convincing, but between the source in the article and the rest, it's borderline IMO. Hobit (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 22 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Top Achiever Scouts

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

Questionable notability. There doesn't appear to be any sources besides primary ones. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be affiliated to the World Scout Foundation so perhaps a merge there would be appropriate.--Bduke (Discussion) 01:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request admin void three related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Sudan Girl Guides Association/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Top Achiever Scouts/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stowarzyszenie Harcerstwa Katolickiego Zawisza as WP:WIKIHOUNDING by User:Sportsfan 1234 per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Harassment.23Wikihounding_by_User:Sportsfan_1234- There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as found two secondary sources--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://pojoksatu.id/pendidikan/2016/08/21/ditutup-hari-jambore-nasional-pramuka-2016-berhasil-pecahkan-8-rekor-dunia/
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-2837728181.html Daily News (Colombo, Sri Lanka) December 12, 2012

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage. The first added ref is about a jamboree, not this organization. The second is about the election of a Scouting official to a council, again not about this organization. They are both mere passing mentions. The only other sources are directly associated. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 30 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stowarzyszenie Harcerstwa Katolickiego Zawisza

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

Lacks notability Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep although the English version is unreferenced, there are references on the Polish edition. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request admin void three related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Sudan Girl Guides Association/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Top Achiever Scouts/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stowarzyszenie Harcerstwa Katolickiego Zawisza as WP:WIKIHOUNDING by User:Sportsfan 1234 per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Harassment.23Wikihounding_by_User:Sportsfan_1234- There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rationale of Graeme Bartlett, there are references on the Polish edition, and extra care should be observed regarding WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS per non-Anglosphere topics.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would expect the National Scouting Association of any country to be notable. Whether it is in fact notable may depend on whether the membership of 3300 refers to members (scouts) or to scout troops: if the latter, it is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. @Peterkingiron: Note that this is not the Polish National Scouting Organisation. That's the Polish Scouting and Guiding Association. This is a fairly small Catholic scouting organisation which is separate from the main national association. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the sources I see as snippets at [7] are likely sufficient for more than coverage in passing. Without being able to see them fully, I cannot vote keep, but neither do I see sufficient grounds for deletion. At worst, this should be merged to History of Scouting in Poland, through considering I see mostly keep votes above, I don't think it is necessary. I'll ping expert on Polish scouting, User:Halibutt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There does seem to be sufficient, if minor coverage. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:33, 3 February 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siglem 575

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

Fails WP:GNG. Newly created poetry structure. Unknown within the internetworks. Seems to be the work of one or two individuals. All references seem to be blogs. Unworthy of Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we get these every now and then: some made-up poetry form. Appears on a handful of personal blogs, which have all been added to the article as refs -- zero Gbooks hits. Nothing at all from any reliable independent source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources are only announcements and the information is equally similar and unconvincing, nothing else is substantial. SwisterTwister talk 04:04, 22 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. While the nomination itself has been started by a sock, editors in good standing uniformly comment that the subject doesn't pass our notability guidelines, after two relists there's no opposing opinion, so deleting. —SpacemanSpiff 02:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Patil

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

Reason : Article is of low importance. Person is not well known or notable. Against wiki policies.TrulyFan (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not per nom. The nom seems a new editor with relatively less (or perhaps no) idea of how to nom. Despite my initial assumption that the nomination was faulty (based on the nom statement), I've not been able to find reliable sources to support notability of the individual on GNG/SNG/BASIC. This can be deleted. Lourdes 06:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a link to a clip of audiovisual material on the IndiaTV YouTube channel from March 2016 which is not in English but in which she appears as part of a feature recorded for Women's Day. Otherwise there is a lack of reliable sources in the article and a I didn't come across any in a brief search. Some awards are mentioned in the article but there is nothing to indicate that any of these are high-profile. As such, she hasn't demonstrated notability when judged against WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Care must also be taken as it looks like there's at least one other Archana Patil who does get good Gnews results. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator was banned today for sockpuppetry for possibly running a political campaign from multiple accounts. Does WP:SK#4 apply here @SpacemanSpiff: ? ChunnuBhai (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c. Nope. Spaceman has much more experience on India related topics than I have. So he may differ on this (or probably not). Lourdes 16:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the other afds that I closed for obvious disruption, this one has valid comments from editors in good standing, so I don't think this should be closed on that basis. —SpacemanSpiff 14:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've searched again and even gone to my library to see if there's something that can be made of this article. Unfortunately, still can't find anything. Would refer to WP:BIODEL for the closing admin, as there is none opposing the deletion of this article. Thanks. Lourdes 04:41, 22 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.