Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 December	18 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Seems like nothing here has people convinced that the topic meets notability criteria. The pageant itself might be notable, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Casebolt

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

Casebolt was Miss Kentucky. That is the only claim that comes close to notability and that is not enough. I looked for more sources, and did not find anything. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: I see that you again have avoided putting an edit summary in the AfD nomination in the article diff. Why do you keep doing this if you hide in the darkness? There is nothing in this article worthy of deletion. All Miss Kentucky's satisfy WP:ANYBIO#1. Unscintillating (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are the citations in the article, skipping obvious primary sources.

Ward, Karla (July 14, 2012). "Jessica Casebolt of Pikeville wins Miss Kentucky pageant | State". Lexington Herald-Leader. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
"Pikeville Native Crowned 2012 Miss Kentucky | LEX18.com | Lexington, Kentucky". WLEX-TV. July 14, 2012. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
Dove-Baldwin, Rachel (July 14, 2012). "Pikeville woman crowned Miss Ky". The Williamson Daily News. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
Roach, Katie (July 16, 2012). "Pikeville native wins Miss Kentucky". WYMT-TV. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
"New Miss Kentucky has mixed feelings about postponing sophomore year at Georgetown | Our Schools". KyForward. July 17, 2012. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
Paynter, Teddy (July 20, 2012). "Miss Kentucky has close ties to PMC". Medical Leader. Retrieved December 6, 2012.

Unscintillating (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- coverage is all local as in "local person gets award"; nothing stands out about this contestant and a state-level pageant win is an insufficient claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Miss Kentucky is a well-known and widely recognized (recognized world-wide?) award, recognized for many years as one of the ways to compete in the annual Miss America pageant, and sufficiently significant as an award that once achieved identifies a person for the rest of their career.

And your !vote doesn't deny that the topic passes WP:GNG? Unscintillating (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Miss Kentucky is not a "a well-known and widely recognized (recognized world-wide?) award". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and BLP. Insufficient coverage of this subject to merit an article on Wikipedia per GNG. There is only meagre coverage by a few local news outlets essentially reporting only that she won Miss Kentucky 2012. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unscintillating had the audacity of accusing me of "engaging in personal attacks" on my talk page, when here he claims I "hide in darkness" when in fact I post notices to the pages that clearly indicate to anyone who actually goes to the page it has been nominated for deletion. Unscintalating continues to try to bully those who dare have a different vision for inclusion in Wikipedia than he does, and to make totally false claims about what fits any bio. Winning a US-state level beauty pageant is not a high award of the type any bio refers to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note JPL has responded here to a post I made on his talk page, but I will respond there. I have also started there an informal RfC about AfDs posted without edit summaries. Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Aside from winning a beauty pageant and receiving the customary local news coverage, there isn't much to support a Wikipedia article. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one remedy for that is to look for sources. The second is to consider the WP:ATD, for example, is there a possibility of merge to create a mini-bio at a suitable target? Unscintillating (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm inclined to agree that the coverage is WP:ROUTINE about the beauty pageant. I see no lasting effects of this event or in terms of notability for this individual. Mkdw ^talk 01:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have no article on Miss Kentucky 2012, and arguing against the notability of this event is a straw man. The last clause switches from the straw man to stating without further development that the individual Jessica Casebolt fails Wikipedia notability as an event. Those two conclusions are irrelevant. But even if we consider Jessica Casebolt as a non-notable event, where is the analysis of the WP:ATD; i.e., what about volunteering to do the work to merge the material to a mini-bio at a suitable target such as Miss Kentucky? Also, did you look for sources? Unscintillating (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read WP:BLP1E, a policy, not a guideline or essay, before you imply people are making straw man arguments. The individual is literally (from the sources) only known for having won this event which against BLP1E is why there's so much focus on the event in this discussion -- and not because of straw man arguments about inherent notability. Mkdw ^talk 06:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like the article as-is does not meet notability due to weak sourcing and no good sources were found. Also, what is a "notable source"? Notability does not apply to individual sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Schachter

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

References given appear to consist of blogs or to places where the subject may have self-assert "expert" status that lacks independence from the subject. Aside from problems with WP:CITEOVERKILL, the article doesn't provide evidence of having meet WP:GNG. I strongly suspect WP:COI issues as well. KDS4444 (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced citations to half. References are from third-party publishers, "expert" status given by independent sources rather than individual.

Re:WP:GNG - Pre GUidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

All cited sources are from third parties. "Significant coverage" - No other individuals by the name Harris Schachter exist "Reliable" - Editorial integrity is established by secondary sources "Sources" - No duplicate sources are cited "Independent of the subject" - None of the sources cited are works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it "Presumed" - Subject has significant coverage from reliable sources

Notability established by significant number of references provided in the article and on the webHRA5967 (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: HRA5967 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete Again with a nominated-article defender's argument of "BLP sources are out there on the web," yet they're not in the article. That being said, subject does indeed fail WP:BIO as a search turned up absolutely no notable third-party sources. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 18:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP sources are cited within References section. No WP:BIO as this is the first article entered into Wiki for this individual.HRA5967 (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? What few bits of actual biographical detail are in the article don't seem to have sources. Where did they come from? --Calton | Talk 02:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Provided references do not satisfy WP:GNG, nothing better found. --Finngall ^talk 02:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any evidence -- in or out of the article -- that anyone has noticed this guy as anything other than a source of quotes. --Calton | Talk 02:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass NPROF, NAUTHOR or GNG. John from Idegon (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I might be convinced to change if someone were to find more solid reliable sources showing his notability, but I didn't find them. Part of the problem seems to be that since his professional area of expertise is online matters: blogging, social media, search engine optimization, etc., many of the sources are themselves social media. What do we do with an online interview (basically a blog) about him being a successful blogger? Meters (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(And that is a good question... The Wikipedian in me says, "Is the source subject to editorial oversight and fact checking? If not, then it is only a series of personal observations." And while that may be fine for referencing minor personal information in an article whose subject has had its notability established by other sources, it isn't useful for substantiating that notability. Or so I sense it to work. KDS4444 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Weak Delete, not seeing any RS establishing notability, but am open to be convinced, lets see some RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Provided sources satisfy WP:GNG definition of "reliable" as they are all third party sources. Simple Google search of subject reveals significantly more sources and notability. This is an objective page describing the career of an un-ambiguous personality.

Additional RS here HRA5967 (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: HRA5967 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Of the 10 pages on the first page of results none of them are of any use. Two of them are not even for the right person. Giving us a Google search is not of much use. If you have sources you believe are reliable sources that can be used to establish Harris Schachter's notability then please give them to us. Meters (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per clear notability of the subject. (non-admin closure) Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 10:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Hardy

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

The references included here don't seem to support a notability claim. They include several references to the subject's own web site, to the blogs of other writers, to her speaker's engagement biography, notices of her having been runner-up for some awards, and to various other Internet pages with no named author and which may not be independent of the subject. If this is the best that can be done, then she doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. KDS4444 (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the profile here best describes why she is notable. I would be happy to try and improve on the references. I think a hasty XFD ignores the fact that she is a British journalist with six published books, all of which have been translated into 9 different languages. She has been a contributing writer for BBC, the Financial times, and Vanity Fair. As the creator of the page I will do my best to improve upon what I've already added to the page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added several reviews of her books. She passes notability for Authors with significant critical attention. There are a number of other reviews on EBSCOhost I can't access full-text in addition to what I did add. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If BBC Radio 4 found her and her work notable enough to serialize three of her books, then she's notable for us. Plenty of coverage of her and her work. --Oakshade (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use improved referencing per WP:ATD, not deletion. Clearly meets notability guidelines as outlined by Megalibrarygirl and Oakshade. Hmlarson (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 06:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ReSec Technologies

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

Everything listed is literally what only they would advertise about themselves and this includes the sheer fact it goes to specifics about its funding and financials, the fact the awards are so trivial as "Companies not yet notable" and we all know that certainly means enough; the sources found are then literally published-republished PR and also then overfocus with the company's own financial specifics once again; it's clear this only exists as a business listing hence WP:NOT applies since we make no compromises with such sheer blatancy at all. It's quite clear someone involved or otherwise influenced by the company itself started this considering the "services" section is in fact the largest, therefore we have all that's needed to delete as advertising. To state the obvious, not one single source is in fact substantial as it's all still literally publishes and republished company words. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but also WP:DEL4 may apply. Eric-Wester (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. awards for "emerging technology firm" are a sound indication of NOT YET NOTABLE We'll cover it when it emerges into notability . DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previously mentioned reasons and WP:TOOSOON. Moaz786 (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not appear to meet WP:NCORP and I also have concerns about the promotional nature of some of the sources. Mkdw ^talk 07:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 06:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US Mobile

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

Doesn't seem particularly notable, most refs are from the company. Frood 22:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Entrepeneur story was primarily about finding an office phone system, not about US Mobile itself. The PC Magazine story was fine, but it's just one brief story about a small company -- not enough to indicate notability. I can't read the WSJ story because of the paywall, but judging by the title and tagline, I'd guess it's more about Connecticut's startup scene broadly rather than specifically about US Mobile. I can't find any other decent coverage on Google. There's just not enough significant coverage here for an article. -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads more like a promotional piece and fails to establish notability. sixtynine ^{• speak up •}
Keep Looks like the article has been changed and should be reevaluated. -Evaeva79 (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two out of the five sources cited are still on US Mobile's own page. Moaz786 (talk|contribs) 17:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reasons as IagoQnsi and sixtynine. Moaz786 (talk|contribs) 00:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus on a merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yorman Landa

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

Non-notable minor league player Fbdave (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Doesn't meet WP:NBASE, but the coverage of his death is probably enough for a mention on that list. -IagoQnsi (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @IagoQnsi: It may be confusing, but that page is only meant for current minor league players. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was not noteworthy before his death, his death does not make him noteworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Muboshgu that merging to Minnesota Twins minor league players would not be appropriate, since those articles are not for former minor league players in the systems. If he has adequate coverage to meet GNG (which may include coverage subsequent to his death, but not just news reports of his death) keeping would be appropriate. But I can't find such coverage. All the coverage I see is either transactions or news reports of his death. So deleting would be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his death is certainly tragic, but is not enough to warrant a standalone article. As per above, merging would also not be appropriate. Lepricavark (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2016

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artbound initiative

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unfortunately, not notable. The cause is good, but there are no enough independant references to be notable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just delete. no words to add. Light2021 (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 06:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tre Ward

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

No indication of notability – I wasn't able to identify even one reliable source covering his achievements; fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. The article was apparently created by this agency for the sole purpose of publicising this young man. If nothing else, this is WP:TOOSOON. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I should make clear that the article was previously longer than it now is, before I removed (a) the copyright violations, (b) the WP:BLP violations and then (c) some unreferenced content. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable; nothing on Google. Fails WP:MUSIC. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 06:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Beemer69. Besides failing WP:GNG, it's also an unreferenced BLP. ^Avic _ennasis @ 17:10, 18 Kislev 5777 / 17:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks sources. No way to validate any claim made in article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish Republic of Lachin

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

Wikipedia official, one of the Five Pillars principles in this article first violated. According to the article, "May 18, 1992, was occupied by the armed forces of the Republic of Armenia. Two days later, a group of people in Lachin Kurdish declaration of the Republic." After all, one of 70 people to organize the collection is not enough. From the point of view of how to organize a Republican in every 70 persons seem real. The importance of a newspaper article, this article is not encyclopedic. Therefore, I propose the deletion. --Sultan11 (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 1.One of the main reasons for this is the lack of reliable sources.

2.Article viewpoint neutral, impartial and fair was not written.

3.There is no additional information for article expansion in future. --Sultan11 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - nominator has not shown why the subject of this article fails notability; I suspect bad-faith nomination. Plenty of references about this attempt at a republic; article exists across six-languages in Wikipedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to doubt. Kurds had left the territory with Azerbaijanis during the occupation of Lachin. For this reason, it is impossible to prove the existence of the so-called lack of social base. Because of the Kurdish population, together with Azerbaijanis became refugees from the occupied territories. Moreover, the Azerbaijani population of the region in terms of the Kurdish population was not much to say. Article 6 languages does not mean its Encyclopedic. English Wikipedia articles based on the article is a stub. In other words, this is no encyclopedic articles does not matter. --Sultan11 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the ideas of Sultan11. Kurdish community came with Azerbaijani refugess. This is real facts. I think the article should be deleted in the nearest time.--Baskervill (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Unsourced state name. The term “Lachin Kurdish Republic” does not appear in reliable sources. And in article there is such little information that it could be merged into the article of Lachin--Melikov Memmed (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the right approach. The name of the subject is invalid. In fact, an article written about the person who first started. Later he directed in this direction. --Sultan11 (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There indeed was a "Lachin Republic" or "Republic of Lachin", which was populated by Kurds. it was established in 1990. While there is not much published about it, this definitely qualifies for it's own article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Do you have a reliable source of information mentioned above? --Sultan11 (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I lived in Lachin region and did not face facts presented in the article. This is a figment of imagination. --Sultan11 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Please, when you need to write an opinion in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia.--Sultan11 (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. --Sultan11 (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am having a hard time justifying keep. I ran a Proquest news archive search on "Kurdish Republic of Lachin" and got zero hits. Tied "Kurdish Autonomous Republic" + Lachin and got 2 hits, both form something called Kurdish Life that I cannot identify. The problem is that the conflict in this region was followed intensively by international media, so that if this was at all significant it would appear in a Proquest search. And Lachin itself, of course, is not a province or region, but a very small town, 1,900 inhabitants according to the WP page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if this was a feeble propaganda-driven attempt at generating a state, it became part of the history of the region. Failed attempts at building a nation are still notable. The only possible way for us to avoid making political judgments in areas like this is to e broadly inclusive. A negative search for the term was reported in proquest, but that covers almost entirely English. What about the languages of the region? The article in the deWP does not appear to have been challenged, and they have a higher standard of notability than we do. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But is there any evidence that it did become part of the "history of the region"? A search in google books (never perfect because of the copyright laws, but still) comes up blank with the exception of a single hit, which is not to this, but, rather to the idea that there could be such a Republic.[1]. a simple google brings up nothing but this article and echoes.[2]. And the article is sourced to [[3]], which cannot suffice, and to 2 books. Has anyone checked those books?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if this could be reliably sourced to confirm its existence, then I'd be more inclined to keep, but no proof of the existence of this entity has been provided here, the refs in the article are quite dubious, and my own search didn't turn up anything. Fails WP:V. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I'm afraid I have to agree with Lankiveil. DGG makes a good point about being inclusive, and I'm willing to bend WP:N to be inclusive, but WP:V is a much more inviolable standard, and based on my own searches, I'm not convinced we meet that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Richardson

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

Per Wp:GNG and WP:BIO Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for actual independent notability and substance, as the works themselves are not a considering factor. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding enough to establish notability.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Densmore

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

Subject of the article fails notability requirements for biographical articles, having no sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources. He was outed, and killed himself 3 months later, with no coverage before or after. Additionally fails notability for WP:CRIME due to never been convicted and the actual law violated not even established. Wikipedia is not a pillory for shaming of individuals. There have been several articles in the past just like this one and all have been deleted. Legitimus (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was in a report on ABC7 in November 2012, and english national newspaper The Daily Mail wrote an article covering his death in mid-2013 (Which was under suspicious circumstances as stated in the article), 3 months after he died, so saying there was no coverage before or after his death is untrue. There was also lot of local and national sources inbetween these dates. Passes WP:GNG because he has had coverage in multiple reliable sources for multiple events for 2 years AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GNG disagrees with BIO. Wheras BIO requires secondary sources, GNG only requires "sources" so a pile of primary sources count. Business Insider, Redwood Times, Washingtonian, ABC7, Times-Standard, and Daily Mail have all covered the subject. I don't think Wikipedia should be so inclusive as I've argued in the past. That said, I don't think it makes much sense to delete this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain what you mean. Are you saying this article might have met GNG, but it's a biography so GNG is not enough, and it has to meet BIO criteria?Legitimus (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldnt [4] be a secondary source? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For this discussion, primary sources are the contemporaneous journalistic sources. Secondary sources would be academic journals or independent books written years after the fact that really examine details; none of those exist for this subject yet. The subject therefore meets GNG but not BIO. So far as I know, any given article would only have to meet one or the other. If there was a consensus that biographies had to meet BIO then huge subjects including Kim Kardashian wouldn't be notable anymore. (Except for maybe NACTOR there's not a criterion beyond GNG she could pass.) I totally support that interpretation but that's not what I've seen the consensus to be. I don't intend to take a position on this nomination for that reason. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with your sentiment on that and the fact that complying with the rule would make Kardashian no longer notable sounds completely reasonable to me, and is rather telling about modern culture. In my opinion some people are best ignored and forgotten about, which I confess informs my opinion on this article we are discussing (as well as the ones like it before that were deleted).Legitimus (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The references are relatively few and discuss one unfortunate event. There is nothing notable.--Rpclod (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia is not news, and the level of deception here is just that of news articles, nothing of major lasting significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:Memorial and trivia. Kierzek (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; no long-term societal impact of these events either. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to close this as delete but I felt compelled to also highlight WP:ONEEVENT. I see no WP:LASTING consequences to this event that would preserve this individual's notability in a wider context. Mkdw ^talk 17:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vladlen Vinokurov

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTY. XXN, 19:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They do in fact meet WP:NFOOTY. He played on a team during years that was in a fully professional league. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, the only source does not work and therefore the claim he has played in a fully-professional league is not verified - fails WP:NFOOTBALL. More importantly, also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as unverified. Given that the only claim to notability is not supported by reliable sources, this article does not meet applicable notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of NFOOTY Spiderone 08:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are other sources for his appearances, such as here Nfitz (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BURDEN has not been met. Nfitz's source only highlights that there is no seeming in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A stats box with no written content falls incredibly short of WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 17:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Prep Pigskin Report

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

This program fails the WP:GNG there is very little coverage of the program anywhere in secondary sources. Domdeparis (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A local high-school football recap show is not notable. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 19:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local television show of local interest. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy-deleted as originally tagged by creator (part of round-robin page-move). DMacks (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Cylinder (disambiguation)

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

This redirect is not required. The title and the full article is full of patent nonsense. The title ' Delete Cylinder (disambiguation)' and the redirect is just nonsense. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. It's clear that this is an attempt at redirecting, so I'm going to be bold, close this, and fix the redirect. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado, Wyoming and Great Northern Railroad

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

This article is absolutely full of nonsense with no meaningful content of history or anything. This article does not qualify to be in an encyclopedia. There is just nonsense and nothing else. It is not even connecting other articles (redirects). It just says 'SEE ~ Little Book Cliff Railway'. The title of it is nonsense and there is no context. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fix. Of course, it makes no sense that a user did this rather than even linking to the target page, let alone redirecting – but even so, the Little Book Cliff Railway article exists and seems to me a suitable redirect target. — Smjg (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said "nonsense" three times and "no context" once, but it's pretty clear that the article is a railroad, and the content says where to learn about it. Now whether it's a notable railroad, and whether there is anything worth saying other than an external reference? Not sure; but virtually nothing of what you said is true. DMacks (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect. This is obviously an attempt at a redirect by someone who committed the perfectly forgivable offence of not knowing exactly how redirects are done on Wikipedia. Surely it could have been quietly fixed without going through the drama of a deletion discussion? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The article title is referenced in the article target if redirected. Obviously an attempted redirect. In the meantime I made the article text a link to the target. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Little Book Cliff Railway, clearly suitable.MB 22:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. - Nabla (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cochin Masthaara

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

No one has been editing this article for the last twenty minutes. This article has only two words and has a vague meaning. This article might be an unreliable source as there is no information or anything in this article that qualifies it to be in Wikipedia. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This "film" doesn't appear to exist as there are no Google results for its name. Everymorning (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Lack of context and no claim of notability. JDDJS (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. To delete, however there is clear consensus to rename the article to something more neutral. Sandstein 09:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 North Carolina coup d'état

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

This is an extremely biased, recently created article that was apparently written in bad faith. It falsely presents legislative action as a "coup d'état". While this topic may be notable enough to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia, maybe North Carolina gubernatorial election, 2016 or elsewhere, this is clealy not the appropriate way to do it. Neutrality is essential. I think WP:TNT applies here. The username of the editor who created this article, "Alliance to Restore North Carolina", strongly suggests a conflict of interest here as well. Edgeweyes (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The title is bad, the content is biased, but the underlying subject is very notable based on a simple news search. Here are my suggestions that I posted to the talk page: "Legislative coup" might be a little better that 'coup d'etat'. A more neutral title will be wordy. Something like North Carolina legislation to limit the powers of the incoming Democratic governor. Another idea is to increase the scope of the article to include voter suppression, gerrymandering and refusal by McCrory to concede. Then we could call it the 2016 North Carolina gubernatorial controversy.- Mr X 16:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with significant edits Agreed. The title is bad and the user may have a conflict of interest. But the number and quality of sources fit WP:GNG. What is really needed here is better editing. Retitling it 2016 North Carolina gubernatorial controversy and giving it a non-coup-d'etat format would be a good start. Godo1989 (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to 2016 North Carolina gubernatorial controversy.- Mr X 19:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the inappropriate title, 2016 North Carolina coup d'état, which is now just a redirect. Keep the current content that has now been trimmed to a more neutral description of events. Gnome de plume (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to know where to begin. Wildly inappropriate title, current event, overt bias, SPA-account created. Nuke this from orbit. Juno (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the inappropriate title. Keep the article itself for now as it has been rewritten. However, I am unsure about current notability of these events for a standalone article. Wide and recent coverage about the subject exists. I would consider this to be a mild case of WP:NOTNEWS. It is probably best to wait and see before even considering complete deletion of the article. Ceosad (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rename, and significantly improve - The article is as it currently stands is very poor, biased, and appallingly titled. The issue which is at the central core for this article which is the the lame duck session of the North Carolina legislature, and aftermath of the 2016 North Carolina Gubernatorial election., is significant in and of itself. This is due to the current coverage being given in news media, the protests, protest arrests, and the satire shows which are having a field day. There is also historical information and background information on this such as when similar action was previously attempted, the North Carolina re-districting, the re-districting court case(s), re-running of state elections in 2017, and the ongoing impact this has more widely locally and nationally. I propose as a start moving the page to Aftermath of the 2016 North Carolina Gubernatorial Election, and going from there. Sport and politics (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: at the time you commented here, the article title was "2016 North Carolina gubernatorial controversy". Do you find this to be appallingly titled? Or do you mean the former title "2016 North Carolina coup d'état" was appalling? Edgeweyes (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. It's really just typical local politics. It's a news event that has gotten a little bit of national news attention, but it is not an encyclopedia-worthy event. If it is not deleted, a brief summary should be merged into North Carolina gubernatorial election, 2016. Slideshow Bob (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Fighters (LoCash album). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ring on Every Finger

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

Does this song meet the requirements for an article? It has been officially released for 3 weeks, and has reached 48 on one secondary chart. Kellymoat (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - I am not sure whether this song is notable, but it should be either kept or redirected to The Fighters (LoCash album). --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album until song gets higher on charts, by which point it might gather more notability. Textbook WP:TOOSOON since song just came out. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Mexico relations

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

although this was previously deleted years ago, this latest version is a good faith creation by a different editor. however, the relations are very minor indeed. in 25 years of modern relations, the only high level meeting has been one between their foreign ministers. neither country has a resident embassy. the level of trade USD284 million is a fraction of the USD800 billion total trade Mexico does every year. LibStar (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about relations between Estonia and Mexico, and less about trade. If we were to look at trade, Mexico does more trade with Estonia than its next door neighbor of Belize which in 2014, amounted to $143 million USD.^[1] Relations with a small country in Europe are no less important than relations with any other nation. I don't understand how this one specific article was chosen to be deleted when there are countless articles that state little to no information such as Israel–Sri Lanka relations or Australia–Ireland relations, yet, those article are allowed to remain? This article may have been chosen to be deleted years ago, however, things are different now, an I am known for continuously maintaining articles that I have created. Aquintero82, (talk), 21:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. you will need more than primary sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. the article is not solely about trade, but the fact there has been only one ministerial meeting in 25 years in relations says there is a very small relationship, there is no significant migration, military cooperation or other things that make notable relations. Australia–Ireland relations is an excellent comparison, there has been a long history of migration. in fact 30% of Australians have Irish heritage. do say 1% of Estonians have mexican heritage? LibStar (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relations with a small country in Europe are no less important than relations with any other nation. I highly dispute that. And consensus from deleted bilateral articles involving small countries thousands of km away proves this. This is different from Belize and Mexico, whilst they may not have large trade there are links being part of Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. And consensus is that those who share a land border are inherently notable. Belize–Mexico border

LibStar (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is almost all based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the amount of trade is not insignificant; and article discusses beyond trade agreements (notably that Mexico was one of the countries that did not recognize 50 years of Soviet occupation of Estonia as legitimate). Fairly frequent articles on trade and diplomatic meetings and cultural exchanges (these are not primary sources) [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a small country like Estonia with a population of just over a million people, $284 million USD of trade is not insignificant. You also mention that in "25 years of modern relations, the only high level meeting has been one between their foreign ministers"; the article clearly mentions that Estonian Prime Minister Juhan Parts visited Mexico in 2004. Estonia, being a member of the European Union and the OECD, makes it a relevant partner to Mexico as they both collaborate together within those organizations and various others. With regards to the Australia-Ireland relations article; my mention of it was not to state that the article is irrelevant, rather it lacks information. Aquintero82, (talk), 07:43, 1 Decemberr 2016 (UTC)

Estonia, being a member of the European Union and the OECD, makes it a relevant partner to Mexico as they both collaborate together within those organizations and various others. Mexico-EU relations are definitely notable but it's synthesis to suggest that this automatically translate to Mexico Estonia relations notable. Estonia has 24.8 billion Euros of trade a year. which equals USD26.4 billion. therefore USD 284 million of trade with mexico is just 1.1% of all Estonia's trade. is this not insignificant???? LibStar (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand (yet cannot) why of all the countless articles, why this one is being considered for deletion? Relations between countries are always evolving, and as such, so would this article. Contrary to your belief, all relations between nations are significant. Unfortunately, this back and forth commentary will not put an end to this disagreement. Aquintero82, (talk), 21:20, 1 Decemberr 2016 (UTC)

no, over 100 bilateral articles have been deleted. There is absolutely zero inherent notability. Again you use the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Other articles you regard as less notable has zero bearing on discussion here. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Mexican Ministry of the Economy (in Spanish)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more reason why the article is relevant: Culture: Mexico to give Estonia 30 murals for its centenary [12] Tax: MÉXICO Y ESTONIA SE UNEN ANTE EVASIÓN [13] Science/Technology: Launching of the Mexican Talent Network in Estonia [14] Business: Estonian logistics firm expands to Mexico [15] Migration: Población inmigrante residente en México según país de nacimiento, 2015 [16] Diplomacy: Välisminister Urmas Paet: Mehhiko on huvitatud tihedamatest ettevõtlussidemetest Eestiga [17] Aquintero82, (talk), 17:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a massive SIXTEEN migrants from Estonia to Mexico in 2015, are you seriously suggesting this adds to notability? LibStar (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not surprise me that of all the links I provided, that was the only thing you focus on. A country that obtained its independence only in the 1990s which currently has a large ethnic Russian population and once had a large German population, how do you distinguish historic Soviet and German migration from the Soviet Union and now present day Estonia to other countries? Borders and population change even within the same territory and when people migrate, they usually say what nationality they held at the time (German, Soviet, etc...) rather than what the country is now known as. You seem very interested in migration, so you should know this. Furthermore, immigration is not the sole factor of relations between nations. Have a read: Relaciones con los Países Bálticos (República de Estonia, República de Letonia y República de Lituania) [18] (pg. 142-148) and: Cemex and Sakret combine logistics operations, Estonia [19]. Aquintero82, (talk), 16:44, 19 Decemberr 2016 (UTC)

Estonia always had a very small percentage of the Soviet Union population, secondly if you're going to provide a link as evidence of notable bilateral relations try not to post something that shows a mere 16 migrants. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not relevant if the relations are many or few. If relations exist, the page should exist. These are two sovereign countries and the article is about relations between the countries. Since when is wikipedia short of paper? JonSonberg (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If relations exist, the page should exist absolutely not. there is no inherent notability of bilateral relations, this is demonstrated by community consensus of over 100 bilateral articles being deleted. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The crusade continues... Jon Sonberg expresses things well above — it doesn't matter if reportage of A-B international relations is rare, if the relations exist, if there are multiple published sources from which a writer can work, the connection meets our GNG and efforts should not be deleted. This article and those like it is not the way I would choose to spend my volunteer time on wiki — nor is crusading against such articles the way I would choose to spend my volunteer time on wiki. I further resent having to waste my volunteer time on wiki chiming in to beat down a series of more or less specious challenges like this. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We are starting to get close to an AN/I topic ban discussion on the nominator and this kind of disruptive nomination. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Carrite -that would be specious given many bilateral articles nominated by myself have been actually deleted. In fact going to ANI would be a waste of administrator valuable time to beat down things that wouldn't result in anything . Your comments do not deter me in the slightest. LibStar (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what admins would think of your misleading and specious statements at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peru–Philippines relations. LibStar (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP is totally voluntary. It is extremely specious to complain about wasted time here when you chose to join WP , perhaps you could use your spare time for something else like fund raising or reading books. LibStar (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manda clan

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 22:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. I can find virtually nothing for reverence. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also found nothing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Asch

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

Asch does not meet the general notability guidelines. These require multiple sources providing indepth coverage. Only one source provides source, the other is just passing. My search for additional sources did not show other promising sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to WRIF. MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drew and Mike

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

Delete. Article about a single-station local radio program with no evidence of notability per WP:NMEDIA. This is sourced only to the routine and expected level of media coverage in its own local media about staffing changes, with no evidence of wider interest beyond its own city, and the closest thing here to a strong notability claim -- "The show had one of the highest difference in ratings of other shows in major market radio" -- is both unsourced and difficult to parse. As always, a radio show doesn't get a Wikipedia article just because you claim something noteworthy about it -- it gets a Wikipedia article when you can reliably source something noteworthy about it. But all the sources here are sitting on things like "new guy joins staff" and "old guy leaves staff", with no sources for whatever the hell "highest difference in ratings" is supposed to mean. (Article was kept in the original discussion in 2008; however, NMEDIA is much stricter in 2016 about what it takes for a radio program to be considered notable enough for an article than it was a decade ago.) Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMEDIA; has not proven notability at all. -- Dane ^talk 01:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 19:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to WRIF. Voluminous news sources revealed by a simple search make it apparent that this long-running show was of particular importance to the history of the station (as noted by some of the commenters in the first AfD), and this content and sourcing can be used to improve the station article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested Sandstein 09:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dualistic models in art

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

Appears to be mostly original research. Can't find other sources that discuss dualism in art in this way. That said, I'm no art expert, so further opinions would be much appreciated. Ajpolino (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talk to me 02:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Jesi

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

Appears to be translation of it:Bruno Jesi without new information or references/cites. That page is tagged as an orphan and its only references are to a Youtube video and a thesis or dissertation. [20] Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked Mursia is a long time established publishing house, http://www.mursia.com/index.php/it/

the author an historian by profession (a military historian accreditated to the Historical Office of the italian Armed Forces more precisely, with books published by the armed forces own publishing house) and a jew by religion

http://www.giovannicecini.it/

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Cecini

ops ... sorry I know you do not believe in articles published on wikipedia

but

the book is also partially of public domain and if you type "Bruno Jesi" you will have on screen lots of sources, plus assignments and motivations for golden medals are public and published on the web pages of the italian armed forces and parliament

or on the website of the Presidency of the italian Republic

http://www.quirinale.it/elementi/DettaglioOnorificenze.aspx?decorato=13918

or on the Hebrew Archive

http://www.archivioterracini.it/archive/list_t.php?id=251

and if you want you can buy the book https://books.google.it/books/about/I_soldati_ebrei_di_Mussolini.html?id=M6ZtAAAAMAAJ&source=kp_cover&redir_esc=y and read it

it costs around 20 british pounds

but I would also suggest you to buy the book "History of the italian jews"

https://books.google.it/books?id=kMb_CAAAQBAJ&pg=PT685&lpg=PT685&dq=bruno+jesi+medaglia+d%27oro&source=bl&ots=rrNc2VJ1Xq&sig=I3i-6bel6gsppJNzSMFlUn5wc-k&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMrIGSqdbQAhVFnBoKHaphCa4Q6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=bruno%20jesi%20medaglia%20d%27oro&f=false

next question ?

regards Cunibertus (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs editing, but he would appear to qualify as WP:SOLDIER based on his being awarded the gold and bronze Medal of Military Valor. Article from 1939: "Young Italian Jewish Army Officer Wins Rare Award for Bravery") [21] Also described here as a Jewish war hero.[22] No doubt additional Italian sources exist. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't see lasting notability here; WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep -- here's a 1938 American publication describing how Mussolini was to present the award to the subject of the article: The Jewish Veteran. This seems rather remarkable and I wonder if better sources exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article definitely could be improved, but I believe based on a couple of the sources provided by K.e. Coffman, Wikimandia and Cunibertus that on the face of it there appears to be significant coverage. If this is later shown not to be the case, then the topic can be reconsidered at a later AfD if necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 06:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Dominion

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

Does not appear to be a notable platform/organization. It appears that their website is a WordPress page, and the awards they give are not notable either. A search for sources resulted mostly in false positives. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - The claim of significant pertains to the Indian Diaspora, not the month old website. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPROMO.- Mr X 13:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Purely promotional.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable; see WP:ORGDEPTH Spiderone 19:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Score Runoff Voting

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

Delete. Original research. This proposal has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This method has never been used anywhere. There has never been an initiative to adopt this method. This method is uninteresting from the scientific point of view. Markus Schulze 19:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the reasons offered for deletion are not accurate - there is no original research; all information is drawn from significant coverage in an independent reliable source. An initiative drive is currently underway to adopt this system at both the county and statewide level in Oregon. This method is clearly interesting from a scientific point of view, as evidenced by the deletion proposer's and other notable voting experts current participation in discussion on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nardopolo (talk • contribs) 03:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A public mailing list is hardly a reliable source. Markus Schulze 05:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To be clear, the "reliable source" is the IVN independent source referenced in the original article (IVN has close to half a million followers on social media and reportedly 20M article reads a month). The election science mailing list you participate in is simply evidence that your statement "This method is uninteresting from the scientific point of view" is demonstrably false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nardopolo (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This method has first been proposed on 2 October 2016, about two months ago. Markus Schulze 18:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This method was first publicly proposed on the Election Science list more than two years ago and prompted a vigorous discussion between luminaries in the field, as well as ongoing development and research.Nardopolo (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did this "vigorous discussion between luminaries and ongoing development and research" lead to any publication in a peer-reviewed journal or to any adoption of this proposal? Markus Schulze 08:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A publication does not need to be a peer-reviewed journal to meet GNG. The vigorous discussion has led to more vigorous discussion and vetting. And yes, this system has been chosen for a present petition drive at the county and state level in Oregon. Please retract your request for deletion.Nardopolo (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON, discussion above makes clear that there are none of the multiple reliably-published, independent and in-depth sources required by WP:GNG. Online forums and petition drives do not count for this purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I don't see anything that would make this notable from a political scientist's or a mathematician's perspective. Perhaps there is something from a more popular/journalism perspective, but it isn't shown in the references right now. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

All the references are to first-party sources, i.e., to game guides and other material published by the game's various copyright holders. Third-party sourcing is lacking both in the article as it stands and in my attempts to find better ones. WP:GNG asks for significant coverage independent of the subject. Despite the longevity and number of submissions, does not appear to be notable under the general or specific guidelines. Not significantly better-sourced since the wp:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: also created Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons#RfC_on_Notability_of_D.26D_Standard_Creatures Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, and merge any content that might be needed there. Ghosts are one of the most common of all fictional/mythological creatures, and there is nothing to indicate that the versions listed in the various D&D sourcebooks are at all independently notable at all. No sources aside from first party D&D books. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the For Dummies source is an indicator of notability, or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). BOZ (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a monster list unless more third party sources can be identified. A merge to an article on ghosts in popular culture would be an option if one could be identified, but Wikipedia's articles about ghosts in culture don't really support something like that. The For Dummies book counts for something, but as it's a licensed game guide, probably not a lot. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To determine merge target. Sandstein 12:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. This seems to be the first official appearance. I agree that ghosts are an incredibly common and generic mythological creature. Without more analysis, this is probably better served in a list of monsters, though it could be added to the appropriate "in popular culture" article, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eurysthea lacordairei

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

Very short article which does not establish its notability. Param Mudgal ^talk? 11:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article size is not a valid reason for deletion, and species are generally regarded as notable. Is there any reason to treat this differently, such as verifiable doubt that it is an independent species? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per the IPs reasoning, not a reason for deletion. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a verified species. I added some references and did a bit of cleanup. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know we had a shakily established beetle species here recently which engendered a fair bit of discussion, but this is not one of those. Thus fine, like any number of species stubs.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. It's been described many times (under many synonyms) in reliable literature, and this is the currently accepted name, per [23]. FourViolas (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beinbrink

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

Non-notable actor. Has been tagged for more references since 2010. Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly no actual significance as an actor since they boldly and explicitly show background characters as "Cop", "Man", etc. That's clear enough, no need to overwork it. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Politicians

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

The term "innovative politician" seems to be one coined by the article's author (i.e. I can't find anything that actually says the words innovative politician verbatim). While I believe the contents in this article could be merged into other articles, the article should be deleted. Ueutyi (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. Joe Roe (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article is part of an educational assignment at UC Berkeley. I've notified Dave Harris and Ian (Wiki Ed) as the contacts for the course. Joe Roe (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NEOLOGISM. Lubnasebastian's editing is the picture of why Wikipedians increasingly hate these WikiEd projects. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator-invented neologism. A much broader article about the impact of social media on politics would absolutely be viable and sourceable, especially in the age of the trumptweet, but this as written is neither that article nor its correct title. This isn't even just a USian topic as the article claims; do Justin Trudeau and Naheed Nenshi, who have both made noteworthy and impactful use of social media tools in their political careers as well, not exist? Does the use of social media as an organizing tool for political protest not count for something? And on and so forth? WikiEds really need to start incorporating greater training in the "how to correctly identify the potential article topic" part of the equation, because I've seen entirely too many of these articles that point in the general direction of a valid article topic but completely miss the actual target. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- essentially this is a neologism for a new trend in political campaigning. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you! Lessons learned.

Thank you so much Ueutyi, Shawn in Montreal, Joe Roe, Peterkingiron and Bearcat for your feedback and input here. I will encourage my student, Lubnasebastian, to incorporate her work here into other pages. I will also make sure that students have me approve their ideas for new articles much earlier in the semester, and I will make sure to review them myself before they get out of the sandbox stage. Just FYI, I also had required students to work on 3-5 articles for my class, and I required at least one new article to be a part of that. In retrospect, I will not require new articles be created by all students in future semesters, given how hard it is to get those right. I'm also hoping that Ian (Wiki Ed) or others at WikiEd can expand the trainings about notability specifically, as this is a topic that a number of my students seem to have had trouble with, and it sounds like perhaps it's not just my students.

Chris Troutman, I'm sorry to hear that Wikipedians increasingly hate WikiEd projects. It looks like you're a Campus Ambassador. Do you have a counterpart at UC Berkeley? I would love to meet them and bring them into my classes if I use the curriculum again next year. Also, cool font choice for your signature—I love copperplate and it really makes your name stand out. David (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave Harris: Sadly my counterpart at Berkeley, Kevin Gorman, is dead. Wikipedia no longer supports the campus ambassador program, anyway. Ian at Wiki Ed is your point of contact. I absolutely understand what you're going through as I've had classes at UCLA with similar issues which is why I had been so vocal about the importance of Wikipedia getting its interactions with students right. These students unwittingly create headaches for those of us that are long-time editors and it need not be that way. Regardless, I appreciate your attention in this matter. Nobody wants to generate sore feelings over a website and I do, truly, appreciate the work you're doing. We need more academics editing Wikipedia. Thank you for complementing my use of Copperplate Gothic. User signatures help establish personality in this text-only environment although many editors eschew the appearance of vanity. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This a neologism that is being used to group politicians with no coherent connection or reliable and verifiable sources to establish it as a notable concept. Alansohn (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boys of color

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

wp:original research Ueutyi (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Racial achievement gap in the United States - poorly referenced essay per WP:OR and WP:Synthesis. Wikishovel (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear case of wp:original research. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure POV essay. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research that fails WP:NOTESSAY/ TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Griffith Central

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

Unreferenced for 8 years. Fails WP:GNG. 45 stores is very small shopping centre. WP:PROD declined because an IP removed it (ten years ago) without citing a reason Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unreferenced and very small at 45 stores. Consensus has shown these very small centres are deleted. LibStar (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthi Venkatesh

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

Case of WP:TOOSOON. Please discuss. Jean Stair (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the CSD should not have been declined by a non-admin. David.moreno72 08:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conviction: A Sequel to Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice

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

I'm not convinced that this book satisfies WP:BOOKCRIT. While there have been many notable derivative works about Jane Austen's works, I am not able to determine if this one is significant as well. I have been unable to find any significant reviews or references to this book. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Derbyshire Writers' Guild is a well-known & popular Austen fanfiction site. Many authors at DWG have taken their works down because of preferring various self-published/print-on-demand/vanity press outputs but in this fan interview [24] Burris claims Double Edge is a small press which picked up the novel for a second edition after a print-on-demand first edition. There are several fan-site reviews/interviews, however, I find little in the way of in-depth commentary in reliable sources for this novel. There are brief mentions in Chick Lit and Postfeminism & Celebrating Pride and Prejudice: 200 Years of Jane Austen's Masterpiece/Happily Ever After: Celebrating Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Willing to change my vote if anyone comes up with reliable in-depth coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Has not received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, probably into List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, which is not too long and has room for several-sentence summaries, and which can easily be expanded in scope to cover sequels, too. We should be looking for ATDs, and given this excellent alternative to deletion, this should not be deleted. It would also be okay to Keep it outright. However a merge leaving a redirect behind preserves edit history and enables re-creation with more material and sources, if those become available. --do ncr am 02:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge. as suggested. There are many such works, --see [25] and [26] in Worldcat; a very few of them are notable . The notable ones are in many hundreds --or thousands (e.g. P. D. James, Death Comes to Pemberley [27]) --of libraries. This is in about 60. For an extremely popular sub-genre, that's trivial. Normally an academic work on Austen facfic will list every one they can find, so being listedthere does not show separate notability DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as per doncram's suggestion. Not enough independent coverage to show it passes the notability criteria, so merge is the best option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep for now as weeks have shown no other votes and improvements are suggested so if none of this happens, I myself would be open to renominating again (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Campers

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

Delete This article largely consists of 100% copyvio, of a Media Statement, taken from the primary source. Just puffery. The article is not encyclopedic and is written like an advertisement. The article has been edited by a number of single purpose and IP editors. It seems likely that User:Ariayuuki, User: Addinka and User: Addinkamdv and possibly other single purpose IPs User:101.191.236.112, User:121.200.239.131 and User:124.169.103.78 - editors are socks. They have all added what could be described as 'promotional content'. The article has a non-NPOV. It had blacklisted links. 'Wicked Campers' falls notability guidelines for companies and organizations. On 3 December 2016 it was noted (on the article and the article TP) the article should be WP:AFD considered for deletion. There have been no article or TP changes since then. The article should be deleted based on notability WP:N, verifiability WP:V, reliable sources WP:RS, and what Wikipedia is not WP:NOT B20097 (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe for Wicked Campers, any publicity is good publicity and any bad publicity is even better. There is a risk here for Wikipedia not to become an element of the Wicked Campers promotional strategy. B20097 (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the article is truly awfully written they have received enough media coverage, independent of the subject, to pass GNG. It would seem the a complete rewrite, and long-term/permanent semi-protection, would be more appropriate than deletion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep but yes it needs a complete rewrite. The company easily meets GNG, but not for the material as presented. A balanced article, and the current one is not, would give a whole and extensive section documenting controversy (just one of many RS examples) . . . Aoziwe (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Poor article, but easily meets WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue of WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV can be easily addressed. The company in question is a notable multi-national vehicle rental company and there is a range of secondary sources (mostly in New Zealand) discussing the operations and controversies in a more encyclopedic style. Ajf773 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - concur with the other editors above. The article needs to be re-written however the subject is a notable company - with significant media coverage. Dan arndt (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a big re-write (especially the history section), but definitely meets WP:SIGCOV. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Briana Blair

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

A BLP that lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO due to lack of awards; only nominations are listed. Sources include online profiles, interviews and trivial mentions in tabloid-like publications -- these are insufficient to establish notability via GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The worst thing about this review is lack of pictures! come on what's wrong with this review board am I right? :) Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt (video game)

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

No more than passing mentions in secondary sources. Would redirect to bsdgames but that's a redirect too. czar 03:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft with no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NVG. This video game is not mentioned anywhere on Berkeley Software Distribution, the article that Bsdgames redirects to. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of accounting roles. MBisanz ^talk 22:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting specialist

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

Per WP:NOTDIC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A consolidation might not be such a bad idea. Compy book (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Compy book: that's not a bad idea, perhaps "Accounting positions" or some such title would hold them all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of accounting roles. Although that is not a good article at the moment, it looks like the appropriate place to mention Accounting Assistant. MB 04:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of accounting roles; there's no need for a merge as the content is uncited. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there's literally nothing to merge. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of accounting roles. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junior accountant

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

Per WP:NOTDIC Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Somewhere or another, Wikipedia needs to cover the structure of typical corporate and public accounting groups, which would include discussion of positions in the hierarchy and typical career progressions. Compy book (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of accounting roles for now. MB 04:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of accounting roles. Have expanded and referenced that list. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of accounting roles; I don't see a need for a merge as this is currently an unreferenced essay. The list article has references, thanks to onel5969, so it's a good redirect target at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of accounting roles. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting manager

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

Per WP:NOTDIC Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of accounting roles for now. MB 04:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Accountant#Non-certified accountants Redirect into MB's suggested target. I have already added this to the accountant article (did not know about the list, or this afd discussion). Now that I do, will move that entire section to the list (the accountant article is a bit long). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - have moved all the info into MB's target. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All clear by one line now. Agree to above. Light2021 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of accounting roles; I don't see a need for a merge as the content is uncited. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:G4. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre Shirt58 (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marrickville Metro

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

Re-creation of a deleted article, twice deleted under this name and once under name, which was deleted in AFD debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre. Notability is unlikely to be any different. A speedy delete (WP:G4) was removed by the author. Ajf773 (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still a non-notable mall. I have also restored the speedy delete tag, an author cannot remove such a tag from an article he/she created. WWGB (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete the author removed the speedy delete tag I put. Clear recreation of recently deleted. The author has a track record of removing deletion notices and has even been caught out with sockpuppets in deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there might possibly be some indication that this is more than a run of the mill shopping centre: it was the site of one of the first Aldi in Australia (referenced in the article http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s238058.htm); that the centre management building is a "Heritage listed Mill House" (no mention I can see in an search on the Office of Environment and Heritage (New South Wales) website; that it was built on what had previously been the "Vicars Woollen Mill" - see http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/vicars-sir-william-9273 - but no mention in the article. I also had some happy shopping days there when I lived in Sydney. (That, of course, fails WP:CHERCEZLAFEMME)--Shirt58 (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hagerty

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Running for mayor does not denote notability. "References" are hardly enough to support WP:BASIC. reddogsix (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as absolutely nothing here for WP:POLITICIAN. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and POLITICIAN. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 06:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K and G Cycles

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

Article makes no assertion of notability. Search of available sources finds no evidence that this company is notable for anything, is unique, or has made a contribution or achievement beyond what any other motorcycling products retailer has done. There is no in depth, sustained coverage in reliable, independent sources, failing the WP:GNG as well as WP:ORG. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this content belongs on the company web site, not here. An unremarkable business by all counts. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with above. The given reference are all either not independent or trivial mentions. Insufficient coverage. MB 04:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Forest, Florida

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

This seems to be a real neighborhood, but is very, very small (and exclusive) from what I can tell. [28] [29] Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Everymorning (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a youtube video that says it has 250 homes/condos and a community center with a pool, weight-room and tennis courts. Seems to be a very WP:MILL neigborhood. MB 04:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything significant in independent reliable sources that would support the notability of this neighborhood. Slideshow Bob (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Rosenwald

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

BLP issues and NN. Aside from original sources that promote her biography, the main source for this article was written by Max Blumenthal in The Nation called “The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate.” It is referenced 7 times. This is clearly a smear piece written by a partisan author in a highly political magazine of a different political persuasion than that of Rosenwald’s. She is a staunch Zionist while he is a tough critic of Zionism and what he calls the “Israel Lobby”. As a philanthropist she gives money to pro-Zionist organizations, most notably the Gatestone Institute. There is a legitimate concern that occasionally some writers have published anti-Muslim articles but that doesn’t support the insinuation by Blumenthal that this was the purpose of her funding and her Muslim friends defend her. This is the core of the BLP—a smear attack and the response. The sections on her family wikilink to their BLPs and her educational section has no sources. If one removes those sections and self-promotional websites, the bulk of the article is the Blumenthal smear attack. This controversy can and should be covered in the article on the Gatestone Institute as it is about this publication (a partial merge is suggested). Donors often given editorial freedom to their writers and do not necessarily endorse everything written. It is more about the organization and its publication. A BLP based on a smear attack shouldn’t exist. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jason. Articles should not be unreliable, slanted, one-sided, propaganda-piece hit jobs. David A (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Nina Rosenwald is a very significant figure, whether or not you agree with what she stands for, or how the present article presents her. And she is involved/supports a lot of other groups, besides the Gatestone Institute. If editors thinks the article reflects her in a biased fashion, then the solution is to fix the article, not to delete it. Huldra (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hudra's comment sounds right on to me. AimlessWonderer (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We've tried for many years to find info on her but she just isn't notable. If she is very significant one would expect there to be evidence of that aside from the attack articles by political partisans. Let me remind everyone that the rules for WP:BLP say we must "take particular care when adding information about living persons" and this "material requires a high degree of sensitivity" using only "high-quality sources." Such articles "must be written conservatively" in a "non-partisan manner" and avoid material written "primarily to disparage the subject." Jason from nyc (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A WP:NPOV-problem is no reason to delete an article. The best way to solve a NPOV-problem is by solving the NPOV-problem. Options are editing, or just reverting to an older version in which there is less emphasis on the "smear piece written by a partisan author." Like this old version, for example. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeff, you have contributed to this article since it conception in 2013. Don't you think that if we haven't found sources to solve the NPOV problem by now they may not exist? The old version was changed by consensus but let's look at it. References 2, 9, 10, 11, & 12 are info the subject submitted herself. References 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are about her ancestors who have BLP for their story. What does that leave? Basically 1 & 14 are about her and written by others who are attacking her. This gives the impression that the attack articles make her notable and the rest is filler from her own supplied pages or her family's Wiki's biographies. Since that time the material extracted from #14 has expanded to so that this source is cited 6 times. I suggest we tried hard to find independent sources that show her notable but BLP considerations, to write "conservatively" and avoid material written "primarily to disparage the subject," suggest we have a BLP problem. Other have noted this in the talk over the years with one person writing in 2013 that "quite a lot of work to be done on the article, and that is what we are here for" ... others above are saying the same. We've tried. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jason, thank you for your response. I still do not believe that this NPOV-problem is a valid reason for deleting an article, but that is me. For example, we still can insert this article in it to make it more balanced. Or something of these newsletters, when she was in the board of the National Democratic Institute until 1986. That said, I truly hope that the moderator, who will close this discussion, will not determine a decision by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument (as per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No Jeff5102, it is not just you. Other people recognize that a perceived POV problem is a bad reason to suggest deletion. I did a google search, contrary to what the nomination seems to assert, there are references.
Nomination seems to be written from a serious misconception as to the meaning of WP:NPOV. Nomination complains that the references are biased. This is why we have policies and guidelines to help us write neutral articles that are based on RS that weren't written to comply with wikipedia neutrality in mind. Practically no RS aims to measure up to wikipedia neutrality standards. So we attribute opinions to those who offered them. Geo Swan (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Bordering on no consensus. Seems like the question here boils down to whether Deseret News is independent from Mr. Oswald enough to qualify as an "independent" source. If Mr. Oswald was the owner or otherwise in direct influence or control of the newspaper the case would be open and shut, but since they are apparently only connected through the Mormon church (i.e indirectly) it's a lot more questionable. Purplebackpack argues that the source is not independent and the argument is legit, but so are the counterarguments (including an article that is critical of the subject, not something that commonly happens with dependent sources) and they outnumber the delete case. There are some other sources as well but didn't receive much discussion. Accusations of bigotry need a lot more evidence than what was offered here, too. PS: It seems like a similar article with identical considerations was already discussed and kept at AfD and the ruling upheld by deletion review and the closing admin Iridescent when it was appealed on their talk page. For a moment I was thinking it was the same article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William D. Oswald

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

No INDEPENDENT sources (i.e. nothing but LDS.com, Deseret News and other LDS publications, which CANNOT be considered independent as his notability stems from being an LDS official), either in the article or as result of a Google search. p b p 22:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Deseret News is indepdent of Oswald.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...no. The Deseret News is controlled by the LDS church. Oswald draws his notability as an official of the LDS Church. Ergo, not independent. p b p 01:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - We've been though this before, the Deseret News is a reliable source when reporting on LDS-related issues. The nom and only the non has been hell-bent for years trying to discredit the Deseret News but failing to gain a consensus for their point of view. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_212#Deseret_News_as_a_source_for_LDS-related_subjects and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_210#Deseret_News.--Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC) ~~Changing to Neutral based on Deaddebate's assessment of significant coverage, not because of the Deseret News as a reliable source.~~ --Oakshade (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Reverted to "Weak Keep" based on the coverage provided by John Pack Lambert, Deseret News and other sources. --Oakshade (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate, @Oakshade:. Most discussions on this topic, including the second one you've linked to and a number of AfD discussions, have several other editors signing on to the belief that Deseret News isn't independent. Several AfDs have been closed as delete on the basis that a preponderance of editors believed that the Deseret News was not independent. BTW, Oakshade, maybe instead of accusing me alone of being "hellbent", you could actually provide a reason for why the Deseret News is independent. It pledges to promote an LDS way of doing things, and is indirectly controlled by the LDS church. I think that makes it pretty clear it has a POV that skews toward promoting LDS topics that non-LDS sources would not consider notable. p b p 20:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to make the case that the Deseret News is not considered a reliable source, you need to do so on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for deeper community input. But you've already done that twice and you've failed to gain a consensus for your belief. The community has spoken despite your persistent efforts. You can't just push your own agenda in single Afd that's outside of community consensus. --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Oakshade, but those two discussions do not indicate a community consensus for your position (and I might add that, while I participated in those discussions; neither was STARTED by me). At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_210#Deseret_News, a majority of people who weighed in in the discussion doubted the notability of Deseret News. As for Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_212#Deseret_News_as_a_source_for_LDS-related_subjects; THREE people said Deseret News was independent; that's NOT a set-in-stone consensus that forbids future discussion. BTW, I'm still waiting for an actual reason as to why Deseret News is independent; all I've gotten is "a few people say it is". You've said nothing insofaras refuting my above point about the Deseret News being controlled by the church and pushing the church's point-of-view. p b p 00:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you failed to gain consensus for your position that the Deseret News is not a reliable source for LDS-related topics. (Two can play at the boldface game.) That's where you need to make your case for your position and you've not succeed at that. --Oakshade (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need a RS consensus to nominate this article or any other for deletion. Saying I do is overly bureaucratic. Consensus as to whether this particular article is notable or not can be determined right here. And I've repeated several times here and elsewhere why Deseret News is NOT independent (indirectly controlled by LDS church, committed to pushing a point of view consistent with LDS doctrine), and you have yet to give any actual reasons why it is. Probably because there are none. All you've done is say, "PBP shut up, you don't have consensus at some other rando page". And that's neither necessary nor a good argument. If consensus for Deseret News being independent was so clear and evident you've have laid out the rationale here instead of beating me over the head. (I might add actual reasons for the Deseret News being independent are missing from half of the "Deseret News is independent" statements in the two discussions you're so dang wedded to). p b p 13:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is weather the DeseretNews is independent of Wiliam D. OSwalld. which it clearly is. Oswald never did have any controlling imput into the Deseret News. PBP's arguments are a special kind of bigotry designed to limit the inclusion of Latter-day Saint related articles in Wikipedia by defining out of existence as reliable sources much of the LDS related media. To doubt that the Deseret News is a "notable source" shows down right ignorance of the American newspaper landscape. The Deseret News is a highly significant newspaper that in the last 10 years has been at the cutting edge of several major news developments. The failure to grasp this on the part of some editors, and the downright hostility shown it by PBP, shows major biases on the part of some Wikipedia editors against understanding anything except their own narrow navel-gazing focus on the costs, ignoring 99% of the world population by their reliance on sources that reflect only the concerns of those who live in California, Oregon, Washington, and from Virginia to Massachusetts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please spare us the rant about Kellerism. And "Oswald never did have any controlling imput into the Deseret News" isn't how you define independence. If you work for a company, and get your notability from working for that company, the company rag (which Deseret News basically is) can't be used to assert your notability (it can be used to cite facts, but it can't be the only source in the article), whether or not you write the company rag. Nobody would dispute this if the relationship was between a business and a publication, or between a musical group and a publication. But it's "bigotry" if the relationship is between a religious group and a publication? Not on, sorry, JPL. Deseret News isn't independent, I'm not alone in believing that, and neither I nor anybody else (and there are others, as Oakshade's discussions and previous AfDs note) are bigoted for believing that. We just want Wikipedia articles to be independently sourced, and you can't do that with the Deseret News. p b p 15:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of Deseret News' independence, neutrality, etc. the article still doesn't have any citation or reference to a Deseret News article of him. Here is a list of the Deseret News articles mentioning him. Somebody please review the list and determine if any of these articles themselves are notable. Until one of these articles are referenced within the William D. Oswald article, then the William D. Oswald article is still poorly sourced.

I've added some cleanup hatnotes to the article as well. - Deaddebate (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about passing notability guidelines regardless of what a user thinks of a certain source. Maybe I jumped the gun in taking at face value comments above regarding the significant coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Even if Deseret News is not wholely independent, he has received enough coverage for WP:GNG in my opinion. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added multiple sources. These I think clearly show that the Deseret News is indepdent of Oswald, this article [30] is not a very positive article on him, although maybe not as negative as it could be. Clearly there are more sources on him than have been admitted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added more sourcing on his role as an RDA attorney. One problem is that his biggest role in this seems to have been back in 1969 or so, which is before any easily available newspaper sources are dated. Howerver the 1991 source seems to indicate him as a major player in this matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Asserting that Deseret News is not independent smacks of anti-Mormon bigotry. Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from accusing other people of bigotry, @Jclemens:. It's not bigotry, it's common sense. If this was the same situation but with a corporation instead of a religion, I doubt you'd be complaining about exclusion of biased sources. p b p 02:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please properly distinguish between statements aimed at attitudes and those aimed at editors. I am not accusing anyone of actually being a bigot, merely pointing out that the accusations leveled against the Deseret News, solely on the basis of ownership, are not defensible. William D. Oswald is not, to the best of my knowledge, an owner or employee of the Deseret News. News outlets are allowed to select their own topics and cover topics of interest to their owners and readership, including that of co-religionists, without being per se non-independent. Assuming otherwise ABFs against an external organization. Jclemens (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Deseret News is owned by a holding company in turn controlled by the LDS Church. Wouldn't that make any official (including Oswald) an "owner" in some respect? As for ABFing, I think you cast the net of what's independent far too wide, particularly since you're including a publication pledged to promote Mormon doctrine. p b p 15:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mormon Church, or its individual holding companies, are not the subject of this deletion discussion. One particular LDS individual is. His status as a religious leader does not grant him control over the Deseret News, much like a stockholder is not entitled to free inventory from a company in which they have some small interest. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see those two things as particularly analogous. p b p 01:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deseret is a WP:RS on facts; even on facts about Mormons. Just as, say, Coverage in Deseret supports notability because it is a major regional daily; however because it is owned by a holding company controlled by the Church, it is usual to support notability with coverage from additional WP:RSes. Which this article has.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, note that his activities can also be sourced to [The Salt Lake Tribune], [House Panel Tables Bill Restricting Power of Redevelopment Agencies: [NW Edition], Gorrell, Mike; Tribune Staff Writer. The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 27 Jan 1991: 10B. ].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 22:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peru–Philippines relations

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

fails WP:GNG. this article is based on one presidential meeting with the usual want to cooperate more statements but no evidence of this happening . In fact the last statement of the article contradicts this by saying Spanish was not included in Phillipines curriculum despite the presidents talking about it. Neither country has a resident embassy. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, what was the relation during colonial times? What role did Peru play in the Spanish-American war? --Soman (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Challenges of these sort of X-Y bilateral relations articles are tiresome. Both of these countries are connected in the past by common affiliation with the Spanish empire; both of these countries are connected in the present by ongoing struggles against Maoist insurgencies AS THIS ARTICLE DEMONSTRATES. The population of the PI is almost 98.4 million people (until Duterte's death squads knock a million off that total but that's another story), we are not talking about the Marshall Islands or the Maldives here. The population of Peru is nearly 30.4 million people, we are not talking about Belize here. The countries MAINTAIN EMBASSIES with one another. These are large, significant nations each with their own foreign relations history and a bilateral relations history. Clear keep here and a trout for the nominator. Carrite (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the link provided shows a consulate not embassy. Always helpful to actually read links provided. LibStar (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and Peru maintains no embassy in Manila. your claim about maintaining embassies is false and misleading. a clear trout to you. Population size is not a determinant of notability, what is a determinant is significant coverage of actual relations. this article on maoist isn't even about actual bilateral relations, it's pure synthesis on your part. clear trout to you, fake arguments for keep are tiresome. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – Since the relations between Peru and the Philippines are quite minimal, with tourists between two countries having only fewest visitors, in which more than 9000 miles apart over a dozen of stops. ApprenticeFan ^work 15:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as could be assumed, there was significant contact and trade during the colonial era. There is probably more material to be added on military conflict, such as Philippines served as Spanish military base during 19th century armed conflicts in South America (see https://books.google.com/books?id=gVLMWnDjgIoC&pg=PA238 ) for example. --Soman (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at this time as there's sufficient for a current article. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate reliable and verifiable sourcing to establish notability as a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Brown (boxer)

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

Simply nothing actually satisfying the applicable notability Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Boxing since he never played in a major event or otherwise major competition, and the sources all are only about his death, which of course inherit him no automatic notability; from there, there's simply nothing else about this article that would suggest actual notability as a boxer. Simply because he was "nearly getting an Olympic bid" is not itself a notability factor because, in that case, we would accept every single person who came near one, and the fact the article still only focuses with triviality, it's not notability. Originally declined at AfC by Dodger67. SwisterTwister talk 01:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria. Claims about his potential are not enough to show notability and are opinion, not fact (like the claim he "was on his way to world championship"). Most of the coverage is about his death by shooting. While tragic, it doesn't show notability and also falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I told the author, during AFC review, that an article about his death would probably be more sustainable (per ONEEVENT) than a biography. It was a possibly notable murder, but the victim is not sufficiently notable for a biography Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At best this is the murder of a local celeb who had been shot several times before he became known even locally. Not clear that makes either him or his murder notable. Do you realize how many shootings occur in Chicago each week? It was a news event, but I don't think it's encyclopedic. Papaursa (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no policy supports inclusion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Just ask if a copy for Draft: space is required. Black Kite (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Main Punjab Nahin Jaoongi

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

Unsourced and most likely isn't notable. CyanoTex (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The film appears notable, at least among the gossip circles (see [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], etc.). As the film's cast is not yet firmed up and principal photography has not yet begun, it is probably too soon to create this article. I've already had to correct one fact: Iman Ali has dropped out of the production. Let's wait a while to see if this film's planning phase shakes out and actually makes it into production. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

| Noted. Also, the guy could have done a better job on the article, to be honest._ CyanoTex (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @CyanoTex: AFD is not a venue to punish bad writing. If the article needs to be improved, improve it. AFD is only to discuss whether there are sufficient sources from which to build a valid article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

| Noted._ CyanoTex (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Move to Draftspace Needs more than gossip rags. Unsourced, and fails WP:NFILM: Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. I would not be opposed to a recreation once it's released (assuming it makes WP:GNG ) or moving to Draftspace for the time being. ^Avic _ennasis @ 17:06, 18 Kislev 5777 / 17:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. postdlf (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catalog of articles in probability theory

AfDs for this article:

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

According to the last comment on the talk page, the article is no longer being maintained and therefore lost its purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of probability theory concepts unless a similar list already exists.

From the last AfD, this seems to be a navigational-only article, but it does not mean it is only for editors. OK, having the codes for Ctrl-F and all that is weird for a namespace article, but (1) WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP (2) it is a net benefit for readers (at worse they do not care), so why remove it? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A similar list already exists, see List of probability topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORK. If anyone wants to merge these lists, go ahead. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of probability topics per above. The "Specific distributions" section could be incorporated into List of probability distributions. More work than pressing a delete button, but would make these list articles more complete: Noyster (talk), 12:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A nonstandard option: merge into the category system! Indeed, according to the previous-to-last comment on the talk page, "we have categories for this purpose". Really? What about turning a number of "codes" used on this page into new categories? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 06:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueSnap

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

Blatant advertising and the history itself shows it especially since the one user who started it was heavily involved with other similar advertising campaigns, making it self-explanatory as it is, and to make matters worse, this explicitly shows that any "coverage" is only published and republished advertising, basically what the listed sources here are, therefore nowhere in hell's chance of making it actual coverage. Every single source listed here is literally from trivial business publications and everything here emphasizes it, regardless of "hey, but it's a source!". If this isn't an overblown advertisement, it's obvious anything was added to simply make it as packed as it could be, but without any actual substance. What's else is that WP:NOT policy itself allows removal of this, something of which other guidelines are not equipped with. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam / office directory / award listing / etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. relatively minor company, with minor awards, and the references are what your'd expect---PR and notices, No place in an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 09:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS to show this minor company is indeed notable to be on Wikipedia. 09:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1-A Düsseldorf

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

Notability, no references Jennica✿ / ^talk 01:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL8. Eric-Wester (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in any way; it isn't even asserted. st170e^talk 00:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 06:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diamanti (Company)

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

It should be noted that in Italian Diamanti means diamond. So editors will mistake the search results as passing WP:COMPANY Marvellous Spider-Man 10:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. The article opens with: "founded by veterans from Cisco, Veritas, and VMware to enable enterprise success with container technology that can disrupt CTO and CIO organizations". 'nouff said. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the best reference is a techcrunch post essentially promoting what the company says, it doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a promotional waste of Wiki space! Light2021 (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as this is advertising and we therefore remove it with policy WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:CORP. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Que Peller

AfDs for this article:

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

I could find quite a number of independent sources which however does not give in-depth coverage about his music career except inheriting magic from his father. Since notability isn't inherited, this topic fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per uncontested sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Ahdoot

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

The sources here show that Ahdoot exists, although when they draw on the white pages this is very problematicly not showing why anyone cares. Beyond this, they show he is a comedian, but the coverage is short passing mentions often in promotional style. It does not rise to the level of coverage to pass general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a filmography to hopefully establish the notability of his acting career. NathanielTheBold (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's better sources. The Foward, SFGate, Jewish Journal 1, 2, The Linfield Review, The Island Now, Great Neck Record, The Daily Campus, John Hopkins Magazine, Hollywood Reporter Hang googles (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as another week hasn't suggested anything else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of Forestry

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

If published in 2002, the poem is not in public domain. Full text cannot be included, and poem is not notable. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 05:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the text of the poem, as it did not appear in the article until a year and a half after the page was created on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of an aside, but I've found mention of the poem in this book from 2001, so it seems like the poem was probably released prior to 2002 and has just been republished in various places, as works by notable figures tend to be. Of course its publication status doesn't really mean much about the work's notability status though - although the book I linked does discuss the poem in depth. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this may be one of Lewis' minor works, as although it 1st appeared in 1938, it doesn't seem to have been republished until 1964 in Poems (please correct me on this:)), is it covered by WP:NBOOK 5.The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable.? it would be great if there was an article called Poetry of C. S. Lewis, so it could be covered there, then broken out, although with the considerable work done by Tokyogirl79 it looks just about a keeper. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with Coolabahapple that Tokyogirl79 has brought this up to GNG standard (nice work!). It would indeed be good to have an article just on C.S. Lewis's poetry - I enjoyed his Collected Poems, and while he's no Wordsworth he's certainly of interest as a minor poet. Maybe I'll have a go one day. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Chiswick Chap that the that the addition of more sources has brought this article to the standard of meeting GNG. Pauciloquence (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hazaristan Workers' Party (Afghanistan)

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

Apparent WP:HOAX, re-creation of previously deleted article. No hits whatsoever in either English nor Farsi which confirms existence of the group. Soman (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable and possibly non-existent political movement. Previously deleted article possibly implies the latter. Ajf773 (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero hits. I'm leaning towards hoax. Doctorhawkes (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find anything, even in white pages, or in the Hazaristan Times. (Does not mean that it is hoax.) Aoziwe (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If Soman thinks this is an "apparent hoax," that's good enough for me — he would know. In fact, I've run up a hoax flag on the piece per his comment. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable at best. Kierzek (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is Like Drugs

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUM criteria Domdeparis (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nomination states, none of the criteria for the notability of albums outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (music) is met. Slideshow Bob (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaniwari Bazaar

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

Speedy delete was deleted due to editor equating outdoor bazaars with a "buildings and structures". I had speedied it under the "organized event" portion of A7, which is pretty much what an outdoor bazaar is. No indication of notability. There is a single trivial mention on News, zip on Books and the other search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please as it's clear this is a bazaar market, like any other business, is exactly that, a business hence A7. There's absolutely nothing here for actual notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this states bazaar started in 1880s and this has a mention but these are not enough to warrant a stand-alone article, a line or two could always be added here. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has nothing to offer apart from the fact that it is a Bazaar. Moreover this business is not notable for the lack of substancial references and citations. A google search doesnt reveal much about this place, apart from that it is just a small tourist attraction which is not very popular outside the locality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLastMonk (talk • contribs) 06:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the two existing refs are far from in-depth, and a Google search didn't bring up anything to indicate that this is a notable topic per WP:GNG. For what it's worth, both existing sources spell the name as Shanivari; although both searches bring up slightly different results, it's all still trivial coverage. Agree with Coolabahapple that this could be covered at Heritage Square (Surat, Gujarat) but there's nothing here currently to justify a formal merge. Antepenultimate (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 07:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Glinski

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

This article does not really meet WP:ANYBIO as it stands. None of the sources really seem appropriate -- one linking to his law office's web site, and the rest don't relate directly to this article's subject. Dolotta (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lists he has been on are just not enough to make him notable, and the case he gained "regnional attention" for being the defense attorney in is just not enough to make him notable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. "Top 40 Trial Lawyers Under 40" and "Top 100 Criminal Defense Lawyers." is just a marketing thing. TJRC (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting comments from a WP:SPA, there is clear consensus that this is WP:TOOSOON. It can be recreated when better sourcing exists. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Cinderella Christmas (2017 movie)

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

I see no evidence of independent notability per NFLIM and possibly TOOSOON. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It got a little bit of attention, such as this blurb from Entertainment Weekly, but there doesn't seem to be significant coverage. As far as I can tell, the coverage is limited to air dates. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has already been shown in France, USA and UK (Channel 5). IMdb entry includes 2 critic reviews so far. It is a modern variation on the Cinderella story and has a well-known lead Emma Rigby, see Daily Mail interview re UK showing. Note it is actually a 2016 movie as it is being shown in 2016, so a rename would be reasonable. Cjc13 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Since my comment the page has indeed been moved to A Cinderella Christmas (2016 movie) and further details have been made to the page by the creator of the page. Cjc13 (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another tired Cinderella retread, and mashing it up with Christmas doesn't automatically make it worthy of an article. On a side note, I'm not sure how "well known" Emma Rigby is (I myself have never heard of her) considering her relatively small body of work, plus a Daily Mail (of all things) interview hardly does a lot in establishing notability. Also, IMDb is an open-submission site, and I saw no links to said critical reviews. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 19:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:IMDB discounts any user-submitted content including reviews. A lot of routine coverage here so I don't think it meets WP:NFILM. Mkdw ^talk 07:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched for this movie on Wikipedia a few weeks ago after watching it on TV. At the time, this entry did not exist yet. To find out more information about the movie and the actors that were in it required some internet searching. I was particularly interested in the lead actress, that I then noticed was in an episode of "Death in Paradise", and realized that she is in fact a British actress. There were other information about the movie that I was interested in and it would be nice to keep and grow this entry.--Kaye555 (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC) — Kaye555 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mawlana As-Sayed Shaykh Nurjan Mirahmadi

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

Article created by a WP:SPA. It is almost verbatim taken from Mirahmadi's homepage. It is sourced only by it's own homepage, it's own youtube-vids, and a self-published book. Hardly any links to other articles. No Google-hits apart from wikipedia and his own website. Thus, there are concerns for WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been created earlier this year, and will take some time to be referenced in other articles. Shaykh Nurjan is a prominent figure of the Naqshbandi tariqa, and Naqshbandi tariqa has been around for many centuries. Stop sabotaging articles of people you don't like. staffsmcav —Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you encounter copyvio, please remove it immediately rather than waiting for AfD decisions. Articles of people reliably identified as notable can be stubified if copyvios demand it. Samsara 16:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Google hits aside from websites associated with him. This is a vanity bio page apparently created and obsessively maintained -- in violation of Wikipedia policies -- by an editor or two who seem to be followers. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear vanity page with no reference to WP:RS. The SPA argument for keeping seems to be a mere mixture of WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT, and WP:VALINFO. WP:INSPECTOR does not apply as removing the non-sourced material to comply with WP:BLP would not leave even a stub that could be further improved. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete GorgeCustersSabre is falsely claiming that there are no Google hits aside from websites associated with him. How about these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5zflmWMKSc ----> which aired on national television in Canada on JoyTV, and Shaykh has had many interviews with him http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4902657/?ref_=nmbio_bio_nm http://www.naqshbandi.asn.au/meditation.html https://books.google.ca/books?id=V8AvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=nurjan+mirahmadi&source=bl&ots=TGTncf2KiF&sig=zBxRGmBDFdbEHoXP6u3K_u_VmT4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiY8ZnUuvzQAhVI1GMKHezdBVU4HhDoAQgdMAE#v=onepage&q=nurjan%20mirahmadi&f=false https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5zflmWMKSc http://eshaykh.com/sufism/silent-zikr/ https://mistikus-sufi.blogspot.ca/2014/04/tanda-tanda-kedatangan-imam-mahdi-as.html

Please don't make up lies just because you want to see a page deleted.Staffsmcav (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2016 (PST)

Comment User:Staffsmcav, I would suggest you refer to these guidelines: WP:GHITS and WP:RS to understand why User:GorgeCustersSabre said what he did. He did not ""make up lies." On the contrary, he posted an evaluation of the sources in the article that is fully in keeping with previously-established policy. The links you post above don't change anything. If anything, they endorse his characterization. They are, by and large, social media sites or are self-published (such as the book you linked). I also suggest you read this essay and also pay close attention to this core policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, do a google book search and see how many books make reference to his book. He didn't publish all the other books.

https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=nurjan+mirahmadi

Also let's look at the JoyTV interview. JoyTV is not a social media site, it's actually a channel on television and broadcasts nationally to Canada.

If you really think the article isn't in line with previous-established policy, why don't you fix it? Rather than outright deleting the whole article. From what I've seen, George and Jeff just came in there and deleted more than 5000 words about his early bio and career.

staffsmcav —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also for WP refernce, here are some:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisham_Kabbani <--- first paragraph

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

staffsmcav —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

staffsmcav, I suspect you aren't going to like what I have to say, but I believe you deserve an answer. First of all, I did do a Google Books search, and I'm afraid that is of little help. The books that are available fall into one of four categories: A)books by the article subject which have not received reviews or larger notice as our guideline on authors requests, B)self-published works, both by the article subject and about him, C)passing mentions or bare citations, and D)incorrect links to a different person. These are not helpful to the discussion.

Secondly, about the JoyTV interview, we don't have any way of verifying that is true. The only link is to a YouTube video, and no other editor can tell that JoyTV aired it. Even then, JoyTV was apparently a "network" of only two stations, which did not have a national footprint.

Thirdly, about fixing the article, I don't think there is anything to fix. The only significant coverage is from non-independent sources. Fixing the article would mean removing that material. The resulting article would be nothing more than the infobox with his picture and a leed that had his name and little more. It would not be an article, in other words.

I could go on, but I think you are beginning to get the gist. The fact remains: despite being called "world renowned" editors trying to find reasonable evidence of that renown are finding little to none. If there was such evidence, and I again refer you to my previous links to policies and guidelines on what form such evidence would take, I would certainly change my opinion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on social media posts, the subject of the article appears to be a real person who exists. Beyond that, nothing can be reliably or verifiably established by even a single acceptable source. Were it not for the obvious edit warring on the part of the article's creator, this would have been a great candidate for speedy deletion. This article is an obvious WP:PROMOTION violation in regard to yet another non-notable Muslim religious figure whose fans are trying to exploit Wikipedia as a free advertising banner. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

staffsmcav - I sincerely wish to apologize for my actions. I misunderstood what was being requested. Please don't delete the page. Can we work together to make the page in accordance with wikipedia policy that would be acceptable for all stakeholders? I would be willing to Again my sincere apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.149.80 (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear staffsmcav, you misunderstand what is happening. You have been edit warring and violating many Wikipedia policies, but right now we have set that aside and are just assessing whether this Nurjan Mirahmadi page should remain on Wikipedia based on its own merits or demerits. Right now I suspect it will not survive this process given that it contains few or no third-party RS, lacks neutrality and does not establish the notability of the subject. But I repeat: this process is not about the nature of your edits (so an apology is appreciated but not relevant); its about the page itself. Yours, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Being obviously written by a devotee, the article fails to offer a neutral and objective point of view on its subject; while lack of reliable sources makes it impossible to improve it. As it stands, the article thus carries little to none encyclopaedic value. Hence, Delete. — kashmiri ^TALK 00:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I cut the page down to what jeff5102 originally want it to be. The page is not suppose to be a promotional page, it is to provide information on Naqshbandi representative in North America. Naqshbandi is a major school of Sunni Islam spirituality studies. Staffsmcav 19:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Staffsmcav, the point of this Articles for Deletion page is not to decide whether the As-Sayed Nurjan Mirahmadi article should be presented in a certain way -- ie, the way that Jeff5102, you or I might want it -- but to form a collective view, with the input of editors, about whether the article is worth keeping on Wikipedia at all or should be deleted. The process won't take much longer, I think. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a contemporary Canadian person, so if he is notable he ought be mentioned in Canadian newspaper articles, or maybe in articles in foreign newspapers. He is not. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a television program that airs on joy tv which broadcasts across canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joytv). This is the show's page: http://www.joytv.ca/shows/harpreet-singh-show/

And on youtube you can see a recording of the previous interviews:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sfEX9Fdd9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sfEX9Fdd9s

Again these are not videos uploaded only on youtube. They're copies of what was aired on joy tv. Staffsmcav (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant biographical coverage in independent reliable sources. The aim of the notability guideline is to ensure that enough content can be written and sourced reliably. An interview like posted above does not fulfil the criterion of "significant coverage", because it hardly gives any biographical information. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Mexican Ministry of the Economy (in Spanish)

[1]