Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 September	12 September >

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. This AfD was never properly opened, and ere was never properly closed, yet the article was deleted nonetheless. Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 21:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic Solutions

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

Delete. Cannot see the link of what is being said, and I cannot make sense of the first lines. Max Browser (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So if the user above cannot "make sense" of the article, is it my problem??? Hardly a reason to invent deletion article. International Pumpkin (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Note to closing admin: International Pumpkin is now blocked as a vandalism-only account.

Didn't answer my point about it being disjointed. Max Browser (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make up your mind, you editing as Meters or Max Pumpkin? International Pumpkin (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete vandalism. The vast majority of this article is just material copied from existing articles and has nothing to do with the apparent subject, Artistic Solutions. The lede paragraph is the only material relating to the subject, and it is incomprehensible gibberish. Meters (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gibberish. You said more or less the same thing when you logged in as Max Browser. International Pumpkin (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete vandalism. Editor is obviously only here to be disruptive. noq (talk) 20:47, 11 September 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 per CSD:A7 - article did not make any claim of notability, or provide evidence of this. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VinylMaster

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

I could only find primary sources on google; on top of that, I put a CSD tag on the companies article. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional and advertising. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:10, 12 September 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 Userfy to User:Bob sleadd retired police/Jazz performers at Black Hawk, 1962. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz performers at Black Hawk, 1962

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

Confusing and WP:OR. Not sure if this is supposed to be about the author, some pictures, or actually something about the title. Can't really fit into any CSD for this article, although it is a possible WP:G2. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' -Definitely WP:OR. Looks like the article's author might be communicating with Wikipedia in hopes of finding some information he wants, or is wanting to create an article about himself and his photos. WP:G2 seems like a good category, now that the author is in touch with people who can give him some guidance. ABF99 (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC) changing my ivote to Userfy per Metropolitan90's comments below ABF99 (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think G2 would be perfectly acceptable, and even if the CSD criteria don't fit, I am hard-pressed to think of anyone who would want to keep this (I'm guessing a SNOW close here). Primefac (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. I suppose it's not the end of the world if they want to keep this somewhere in their userspace. Primefac (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. The writer of this page apparently wants to communicate with people who might have information about the subject, and perhaps his doing so could lead to the addition of information or photos to Wikipedia. This doesn't belong in the mainspace, and he admits that by saying, "I know this is not what is called an 'Article'". But having it on his userpage or a user subpage would probably serve his purposes, would do no harm, and could possibly result in benefit to Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. It would be a shame to destroy this information because it doesn't fit policy. Put it in user space. Andrew³²⁷ 12:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy -- an unreferenced personal essay and WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST for personal reminiscences. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the AfD itself specifies how this, in no form or shape, actually states where it can be acceptable or improved to the levels of an actual article. The fact this was an SPA and the user actually signed it themselves (!!) states how it's quite unlikely they would come and improve it, let alone to the levels of acceptance, if they were not at least knowledgeable of basic uses and activities here at Wikipedia. Therefore, if the article itself contains such a journalesque form, there's nothing to keep, especially if it starts with "I had the special privilege to be allowed....". SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 19 September 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 01:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odigma

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

Doesn't seem to meet the WP:CORPDEPTH standard. All what I see, are PR and WP:ROUTINE coverage. Anup [Talk] 22:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 22:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 22:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am deeply unconvinced; lots of press releases, take those away and you have coverage of corporate ownership - David Gerard (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage outside press releases. Meatsgains (talk) 23:31, 12 September 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. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of wild animals given human names

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

No evidence that such a list is, or could ever be notable. The author in removing the PROD references a blog that superficially discusses the benefits or disbenefits of giving wild animals human names to aid conservation. This suggests that there might be a potential article something like The conservation value of named animals but even this would be at high risk of being WP:OR and this isn't that article. This article has no references other than those for the individual animals. There is no evidence that the concept is notable. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Attempting to find sources for this list led me to the same conclusion as the nominator, namely that this list is not notable, but an article on the value of naming wild animals would be notable, since that is heavily discussed in a wide variety of sources. No one suggests simply listing all the wild animals that have been given names... according to the sources I found, this would be akin to simply listing all wild animals in every zoo, ever. Nonsense. Fieari (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree completely with the above arguments. It's arguable that the concept of humanizing wild animals by giving them human names is notable in the first place. Even if it was, this isn't an article on the concept at all. I don't see the value of keeping this page. We should be rid of it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree. The value of keeping this page is that it isolates incidences where humans have for various reasons reached across the species divide and declared affinity with animals, by granting them human names. The list should exist as it provides a pool of examples of this curious phenomenon, a phenomenon which tells us a lot about ourselves, and indeed a phenomenon noted in conservationist literature. I note that all animals in zoos are by definition no longer wild, and that listing all named zoo animals (Harambe excluded) would be folly indeed. This here is a different matter. Naming wild animals for their quirks is notable and of interest, I hope you can agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodiddly23 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Bodiddly23, I appreciate the sentiment, but we have to follow the sources here, and are not allowed to engage in Original Research. The sources which discuss naming wild animals do lump zoo animals in with the practice. No source I could find discusses exclusively wild, not-in-captivity animals with names, or the activity of naming them. You may be able to find a source that gives a name for a single wild not-in-captivity animal, but collecting all these into a single article would be Original Research without at least one Reliable Source that does the same thing. And this reliable source is what we lack, unless you are aware of one? Fieari (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your thoughts Fieari. I have located this source tackling exclusively the issue of naming wild animals - making a distinction between wild and zoo animals, ie. Cecil the Lion vs Harambe the mountain gorilla in this article: www.theintelligencer.net/news/national-news/2016/07/should-we-name-wild-animals/ I also note this lengthy conservation discussion, though it is not an article per se: http://safaritalk.net/topic/15753-the-naming-of-animals/ Bodiddly23 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I proposed the article for deletion using the same notability rationale as Velella. As I told Bodiddly23, according to point 6 of Wikipedia is not a directory -> Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations: Cross-categories like animals and human names are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. Since the author thinks that that is the case, I asked him to search for sources to justify its inclusion, but I agree with Velella that the link to the blog is clearly not enough to establish the needed in-depth coverage from multiples reliable sources independent of the subject. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- **Thank you for your thoughts Crystallizedcarbon. I have located this source tackling exclusively the issue of naming wild animals - making a distinction between wild and zoo animals, ie. Cecil the Lion vs Harambe the mountain gorilla in this article: www.theintelligencer.net/news/national-news/2016/07/should-we-name-wild-animals/ I also note this lengthy conservation discussion, though it is not an article per se: http://safaritalk.net/topic/15753-the-naming-of-animals/ Bodiddly23 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bodiddly23: I think the article you just mentioned from theintelligencer is a valid reliable source. The discussion in safaritalk however is not. If you can find more sources like the one from theintelligencer then you could argue that the subject meets our general notability guidelines by demonstrating in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. You could then expand the article to explain the concept and its relevance based on the reliable sources and since the list is short, you include it within the article or keep it as an annex. But all of this only if you can find the needed additional sources to establish notability. If you do I would change my vote to keep (but changing its title). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment If notability is established, a more suitable title, in any case, would be something like "Naming of free wild animals" or "The conservation value of named animals" as suggested by Velella. As Fieari pointed out the current wording of the title includes zoo animals as well. Such a list would make no sense in any case.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Crystallizedcarbon:, I am assessing these suggestions. I have renamed the page. I appreciate the guidance. Having found multiple source, I see that the article topic is the phenomenon of naming free wild animals. This article could contain a list of example named free wild animals. I will hone. Bodiddly23 (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per WP:IINFO. There are probably tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of animals in captivity with human names. Such a list is unmaintainable. shoy (reactions) 14:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Misread shoy (reactions) 12:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- shoy, the article concerns wild animals, not animals kept in captivity. Compare cecil the lion with Harambe the western lowland gorilla. The naming of a wild animals is a peculiar and controversial phenomemon, as noted by this article: www.theintelligencer.net/news/national-news/2016/07/should-we-name-wild-animals/ Bodiddly23 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this fails WP:SAL. As Shoy notes, it is an unmaintainable list (scope too large). Moreover, even if named wild animals was a notable topic (plausible, but needs sources), it would not follow that a list of those would be notable - most likely, the parent article could discuss a few examples following RS analysis. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Tigraan, what is RS analysis? Surely with all the lists in wikipedia, there is room for a list dedicated to the phenomenon noted in this article: www.theintelligencer.net/news/national-news/2016/07/should-we-name-wild-animals/ A day may come in the near future when we look with wonder at the audacity of man to grant names to wild animals - Benson the Carp for example - to assume, even 'ape' affinity (if I may) with wild creatures. Bodiddly23 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodiddly23: "RS analysis" = what reliable sources have written about the subject. While an article from the Edwardsville Intelligencer may or may not be considered so (it is a minor newspaper, compare with others at The Intelligencer), that particular article reads like personal opinion of the author, so it probably isn't.

In any case, notability is a higher bar than verifiability, and that is why there is "no room" for that subject on Wikipedia. Unlike in paper media, space is not a problem on Wikipedia, but there still is an "editorial board" (the community) that does not wish Wikipedia to become a place to dump anyone's personal thoughts. (Of course, this is a rough summary of hundreds of pages of guidelines...)

Finally, even if named wild animals was a legitimate subject for an article, I do not think the encyclopedia would benefit from splitting the article with a list of such animals, unless it becomes excessively long. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT; I don't think readers would expect to find such a list in an encyclopedia. This topic has not been the subject of independent inquiry and appears to be trivia and / or original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is a meaningless list. What is a "human name"? Only humans name things, so every animal has a human name, the human name for the species of animal it is! And it gets silly if we remember that the meanings of human personal names are very varied so will include names that actually originated as the names of animals, or their characteristics. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above - Listcruft. It looks like there is already a clear consensus, only voting on this one to maybe get it closed. MB 01:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I agree with several of the arguments above that this should be deleted, I want to comment to Bodiddly23 that there looks like there may be an opportunity for an article anthropomorphism of animals either as a stand-alone article or as an expansion of anthropomorphism. See for example Biodiversity and Conservation, Phys.org, MNN, Mongabay, Science 2.0, Science Daily, DW, and Audubon. Several of these are about the same paper (the first one), but not all, and there looks to be a lot more. Food for thought. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:15, 18 September 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 01:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Yadav

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

The subject of the article does not appear to meet the notability criteria. The article was created and virtually exclusively edited by Sanjay169, who is the self-proclaimed subject of the article, disregarding Wikipedia:Autobiography. The article was proposed for deletion by Grko3, but the autobiographer objected, adding some links to a couple of blogs (which do not appear to meet the reliable source criteria) as "references." The page has previously been deleted twice (by Explicit and Liz, respectively). The current article history is a bit confusing, because the article was repeatedly overwritten by Sanjayshivalak (a.k.a. 1.39.51.200 a.k.a. Er.sanjay yadav), another vanity editor with the same name who would like the article to be about him instead. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nominator. Vanity page for subject lacking in significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator, the author is the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badnaam (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources, author is subject violating autobiography guidelines. Fieari (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:52, 12 September 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. Closing a few hours early, so consider this a "speedyish close". It's obvious that at thing point, there's not a snowball chance in hell that the consensus is going to change. If you think this is an innapropriate closure, contact me on my talk page. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thought eater

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments below, or failing that merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). BOZ (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Made Geek.com's "The most underrated monsters of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" here, as well as a separate article calling it worthless [1]. It also appears to be covered in the Paizo-published (non-WotC, non-TSR) Pathfinder Bestiary, perhaps in multiple editions, based on this, but searching within the book is not available online, and I cannot confirm it. It does appear in the SRD, however, so this is entirely plausible: [2]. For a weird little monster, that appears to actually meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. It's great to see a minor monster that actually seems to be notable; maybe we could all chip in and try to expand this article a little. I think DYK would be a definite possibility if any of us have easy access to the sourcebooks; BOZ, do you have them? Mine are on another continent and I never picked up the psionics books anyway... Josh Milburn (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I had many on PDF, but not on my current hard drive. :( Thanks for asking, though. I do have a few available in hardcopy, like the original "Monster Manual", so I may dig that one out this week and add a few details. BOZ (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, per BOZ. This one arguably has some notability. GentlemanGhost (converse) 20:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I would like to see it as a separate nice article, but it needs some flesh on the bones still. Topic is noteable. Polentarion Talk 19:22, 14 September 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 01:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Constituent country

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

Pure original research. Some sovereign states have federal or regionalized structures and sometimes, some people call those component parts "countries." This does not create a separate topic of "constituent countries" not better covered at e.g. Administrative division, Countries of the United Kingdom, etc. The list of "constituent countries" is arbitrary and it is not clear what objective criteria could ever be used to fix it. TiC ^(talk) 21:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete. A list of subdivisions named "country" isn't informative, since "country" doesn't have a specific meaning. There are subdivisions recognised as comprising nationalities within states which are not referred to as "countries", such as Catalonia, but nonetheless share the same cultural characteristics that we see in a nation state / independent country. Also, Autonomous administrative division covers most entities listed here. Rob984 (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Man, that article has a lot of problems of its own. It's a duplicate of List of autonomous areas by country, but encrufted with all manner of trivial and questionable inclusions, and pointlessly organized "by designation" even though this is a question of translation and in many cases arbitrarily chosen anyway. Something about this topic seems to attract original research and arbitrary, editor-devised classification schemes. TiC ^(talk) 20:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. I think there is room for an article on autonomous areas, but that article is bad. We also have an article named Constituent state which seems to also cover a made up concept. Rob984 (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any reliable sources for this terminology. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:53, 12 September 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 01:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlo Scalia

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

Doesn't meet the notability standards of WP:NMUSIC Rahul^{Text me} 20:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gnews reveals a few minor mentions in small Quebec papers. Not notable, at least at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article makes no actual claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC, instead basically amounting to "Giancarlo Scalia is a person who exists", and there's precious little evidence of reliable source coverage. The only citations here are his own primary source website and a single review in an alt-weekly, and per Shawn there's not a whole lot else out there. So this does not meet WP:GNG in lieu of failing NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 05:33, 18 September 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 Victoria, British Columbia § Recreation. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bike to Work Week Victoria

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

Non-notable local event. Has all the usual reporting and annoucements in local news. The general idea of a Bike-to-Work Day/Bike Week (Bicycle Week) seems to have wide coverage because it's a widespread and very long-standing annual event, but I don't see wide coverage specifically about this one place's comparably recent form of it to merit a stand-alone article. DMacks (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Victoria, British Columbia § Recreation, where the topic is mentioned. This will improve the latter article. The topic has received some coverage (e.g. [3], [4]), but the coverage is mostly local. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as detailed above to Victoria, British Columbia § Recreation Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 17 September 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 01:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flo2cash

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

The unusual name makes it fairly easy to do Google News search and the results are surprisingly bad. Yes, there are a good number of references. But all these Scoop references go to press release-like announcements. And Gnews search for the company name for yields next to nothing. There also seems to be some misleading edits here, too. The first ref is identified as Live Mint, which is an Indian news site. But it's not. It's a link to http://www.franchise.co.nz/article/2327-flo2cash-br-a-business-doing-business?cat_id=23, authored by Flo2cash. See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankur Dharmani, for the CEO's article, by same editor. Something's fishy here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands per WP:CORPDEPTH, and I can't find any sources actually about the company. I'm surprised and disconcerted by this, however - they're clearly a company of some standing and the sort of thing one might look up. Can no-one turn up sources on them? - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the unsupported claims made in the article are exaggerated? I'm not as sure what their standing is, at this point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Anup [Talk] 22:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Reconsideration

Hi every one Anup [Talk], Shawn in Montreal (talk), David Gerard (talk)

Okay going towards everything yes it's me all behind everything making an article on flo2cash and Ankur Dharmani but as described about Dharmani, before on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankur Dharmani. I apologize and i'm trying to fix it as i saw a news few days back on Facebook then i Googled and i thought it's a good thing/article to start a page on flo2cash because in New Zealand there was no article on Fintech companies and it's one of best futuristics companies based in New Zealand as concerned towards fin tech (let me tell you i'm not in any relation of the company and person, it's only my reflection and my work).

But later in my absence someone else edited the flo2cash i don't know since i'm bit new on Wikipedia, not a pro so i don't know how to get information about the USER who edited so that i can warn him/her. Yes Live Mint was a mistake as i copy pasted some of my references form my previous article as i forgot to make correction. After making the page on flo2cash i thought it's good to even write an article on his CEO(as described before), yes bit low with the data but yes now i have everything for consideration(it's not for the purpose of advertisement). So pardon me for everything i will fix and would like to request to make a reconsideration for both article for not putting it for deletion, for instance please help in making contribution towards the articles. Afrojack255 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, there was content added by what appears to be a different editor. Still, it doesn't change the next to nonexistent Gnews results. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Shawn in Montreal (talk) please help beside nonexistent Gnews results.So that it not get considered for deletion Yes i agree with the Ankur Dharmani page but the flo2cash article can be considered.User talk:Afrojack255 —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn´t there some more reliable coverage in local media? Sources in the article are too weak (eg. Scoop will publish nearly anything New Zealand related). If you want to save this article, you need "reliable sources" - eg. paper (or online) magazines with editorial staff. Pavlor (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: the weak sourcing doesn't establish that this firm is notable. Being the oldest Fintech company in New Zealand (if true) isn't a significant achievement, and the claimed turnover isn't particularly high for a financial sector business. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ohkay Sir(to everyone) give me some time if not then no problem deletion should be made for the articles...thank you for your time everyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrojack255 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Some sympathy for the main author who should be allowed some time to attempt to add the sources they think exist. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Online or Offline, the big, famous and rich will always prevail over the small and mediocre.Abhnvcdhry (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Abhinav[reply]
delete lacking in depth coverage. Most of the sources are not primarily about this company. LibStar (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial page. The coverage that I see is PR or PR-like. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, with insufficient depth of coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 18 September 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 01:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Srivastav

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

Participated in X-Factor, other then that can't find any evidence of notability. Doesn't meet the notability standards of WP:NMUSIC Rahul^{Text me} 19:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom working on Bollywood project or being in same movie with award winner isn't notable.(Working with award winner doesn't apply notability.) It needs to be something like this: List of highest-grossing Indian films Fruitmince (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Srivastav is not only the participant of X Factor India but also he is versetile singer and now working on some bollywood project and he has done many big events. There is one Krishan Vs Kanhaiya from those with Paresh Rawal. You can see some news links and read properly the these article, you'll see the name and picture of Singer Vishal Srivastav

missdhinchak.com/krishan-vs-kanhaiya-play-atheist-battle-god/
www.pocketnewsalert.com/2016/05/Krishan-Vs-Kanhaiya-A-Thought-Provoking-play-about-an-Atheist-Battle-with-God.html I think it should be the same as its place. I promise that I'll be continuously giving latest news links about him. Shivam Roy User Talk 7:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E; no independent notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 14 September 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 01:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Dharmani

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

Can not find anything notable about the person and the company of which he is the CEO Rahul^{Text me} 19:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Reconsideration of article Ankur Dharmani

Hello sir (Text me) this is User:Afrojack255 im working on Ankur Dharmani project it's only thing i got which saved on his page in present but i have more data it's a good article. I request don't transfer for the deletion as it's not a voilation it will be a great article since he is a CEO of a big evolative fintech, New Zealand based company. —Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flo2cash. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands, nothing about him as an individual. Flo2Cash is a separate matter, though I'm having trouble finding sources for that one even though it feels like the sort of article that should - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG or any other Wikipedia's inclusion standard. Anup [Talk] 22:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: As per nomination and WP:BIO standards not met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badnaam (talk • contribs) 23:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete No coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all of the above. Non-notable businessman with a lack of independent secondary sources required to pass WP:NBIO Ajf773 (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: this seems to be spam Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply not notable. Schwede 66 19:31, 12 September 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 Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (G). MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz Gropp

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

Notability: an unremarkable SS First Lieutenant, whose article contains virtually no content that would be expected in a balanced biography, resulting in a WP:DIRECTORY listing. Significant RS coverage cannot be found. The article is part of roughly 500 articles created by editor Jim Sweeney (now retired) in the span of a few months in late 2008 - early 2009, and has not been improved since. The subject does not have a de.wiki article.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). There's currently no consensus that a single award of the Knight's Cross meets SOLDIER1 due to the facts that not all were awarded for valour, and that too many were awarded (over 7,000).

Current AfDs for German WWII Knight's Cross winners can be found at as part of the aforementioned discussion. This article does not meet the low bar of WP:Soldier for WWII Germany, as the award is questionable, however, PROD has been declined on the grounds that this needs AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without proof of the Iron Cross award, the subject otherwise doesn't meet notability criteria. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct to appropriate list, IF there is one which covers those awarded the Knight's Cross where it either cannot be confirmed or was an award not officially approved; and if no such list exists (I know it has been discussed), then delete accordingly as not meeting notability criteria. Kierzek (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- such list does not exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (G) which documents the uncertain nature of the award. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be more information about the question whether Gropp actually received the Knight's Cross than about Gropp himself. That kind of controversy does not generate notability, though.--Assayer (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable SS officer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no proof of award, in addition to the fact that the references don't establish notability per GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) This award was made too often to provide a worthwhile category. (2) The "awards" is more likely to be a citation for an award that was never formally approved, as the war ended so soon after. For the rest he is completely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life (AKA The Boy Who Commits a Murder)

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

Fail WP:NFILM. References given are not reliable sources - Own WIX website, a couple of sites you can submit your own film for review and amazon. noq (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above - Fails NFILM & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 22:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @KGirlTrucker81: WP:PERX. — Sam Sailor 03:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Sam Sailor - I myself use "Per above" even without adding on to it if I deem it pointless, If someone above me had said "Fails NFILM & GNG." then I simply would've said "per NAME" because it's stupid to copy & paste the answer above you when you may aswell just say "per above", Not only that but KGirlTrucker81 could've been going to bed but what wanted to quickly chip in before leaving, I only tend to use PERX if there's tons of keeps with them but one here & here isn't really going to matter :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sam Sailor: It would been awful to copy-paste the same reason given but I only use "per above" for the same reason. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with you both, it would be awful (and maybe even stupid?) to just "copy-paste the same reason", but, alas WP:VAGUEWAVE. Should we be as frank as Velella is below: all three articles in this set are disguised promo. — Sam Sailor 22:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Low-budget featurette, with an astonishing amount of detail considering the lack of sources. Fails WP:GNG and any criteria in the SNG. — Sam Sailor 03:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. All part of a bigger promotional exercise which is not wanted here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a poorly disguised promo. --Finngall ^talk 23:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find nothing to show that this movie is ultimately notable enough for an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing any portion of WP:NF. If it ever receives decent coverage, the topic can always be resurrected, but for now it is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian D. Holmes

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

Doesn't meet the notability standards of WP:NMUSIC Rahul^{Text me} 18:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently quite active promoting himself on a variety of web forums, he is completely non-notable, at this time. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I published this stub article by accident, experimenting with the publication process and seeing how it compared to the Sandbox. I apologize for the confusion. I am still acquainting myself with the publication process on Wikipedia. I will say, though, having a public like Kaye Ballard give attention to the work is not something that can just be created on a web forum. Her official website is not a web forum. I realize that might be viewed as "circumstantial," seeing that is the case with many other articles marked for deletion. If you choose to delete I'm okay with it. I would like to ask for you guys to check on a couple of other articles I have researched: Giancarlo Scalia, Mark Hayes, and Nick Pittsinger or Varien. Their source information should be checked too, because I feel a lot of their text is based on information drawn from their websites. Again, my apologies. Delete if you wish. There's more thorough work that must be done.Jaxhistorian

Thank you, Jaxhistorian, for not taking the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that usually seems to prevail in deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thank you 86.17.222.157. I'll be honest I actually am now wanting to keep this article, because I see more potential in this than most artists. But I understand that the politics of Wikipedia doesn't usually allow this, and I guess it's for the best. I'll keep watching and adjusting this article either in its live version, on in the sandbox of it's deleted.Jaxhistorian (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jaxhistorian I suggest moving it to sandbox and give yourself more time to find independent, third party evidence of notability. If they simply don't exist then you are probably wasting energy writing an article that doesn't merit notability. However, thanks for info on Giancarlo Scalia, Mark Hayes, Nick Pittsinger and Varien pages. None of these have the sources to qualify for a wikipedia entry, and they should be nominated for deletion. There are simply too many articles vs. editors to catch everything. Unworthy articles slip through the cracks all the time. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing coming close to passing the notability guidelines for musicians. May some day, but right now it is far too soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article itself shows nothing to state how and why this can be independently notable as its own article; it's frankly something best kept at his own social media, and I would not be surprised if those were the intentions here. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING. Composers in blues, jazz, and classical music rarely come into their own until their thirties. There is zero evidence that this subject is even out of college or conservatory, much less a notable professional. More likely, this just a talented teenager. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already stated my bit, and he has completed his school. I never was aware of a WP:UPANDCOMING tag, though. Thanks for sharing!Jaxhistorian (talk) 20:46, 19 September 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 per WP:CSD#G12. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Senior

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

no indication of meeting WP:GNG. Only references are to unreliable sources. noq (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there seem to be a number of Matt Seniors out there, but I too can't find a single reliable source for this one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Young (17) auteur, excruciatingly detailed article, but I too find no sources to reference. Fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. — Sam Sailor 03:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - previously speedily deleted on of after 24 August 2016. No better now. Wholly promotional. Could be speedied again IMHO. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyvio of his website, and tagged as such. --Finngall ^talk 18:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's got the ideas for success in entertainment, but whether he's got the talent (and gets the vital luck that's needed in writing, music and acting...) time will show. As of now, it's well too soon. I gave up on trying to check the copyvio - I lost patience with the website. Peridon (talk) 21:15, 12 September 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 Hum TV. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Momina Duraid Productions

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

The page has not references in over 3 years. There is no reason as to why the page is notable. Manoflogan (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - The article provides no references, does not pass notability criteria and is generally unsourced. It should be deleted. Manoflogan (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your nomination implies that you want this article deleted. You don't have to !vote another time, but you are welcome to comment. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 16:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - it looks like it should be noteworthy, but has zero sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would even "WP:CSD#A7, article makes no assertion of notability" if it weren't such a long-standing article. At most, it's trying to imply such based on a list of notable (by virtue of bluelink) productions, but notability is not inherited. It's also an affiliate/division of another notable organization, so it could merit a sentence at Hum TV and leave as a redirect rather than simple deletion. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hum TV This seems to be an arm of Hum TV. In fact after an extensive search of "Moomal Productions" as well as the article title, reliable sources only show that it is part of Hum TV. [5], [6]. To be honest this may well be notable on it's own, but at the moment, I am having trouble finding out independent sources for it. Per WP:NOPAGE I will suggest a redirect at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Angione

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

The whole article is sourced only to the beauty pageant that Angione won. Some have argued that contestants in Miss Universe are default notable. If this was really the case we would have more than just the source connected with Angione winning the competion in the Seychelles. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 28 August 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 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are essentially zero publications about her. My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PAGENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- BLP with no independent RS. The article also contains a product placement for "Seychelles jeweler Jouel". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 11 September 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. Merging may be considered through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Joan of Arc

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

The page is, and will no doubt indefinitely remain, a five-hundred word stub that more properly belongs in a section of the main Joan of Arc article. I have never seen a "timeline" page for an individual with such a short life for which so few events can be verified, and this is borne out by the fact that she is the only individual person listed in Template:Timeline of religion. Note that this is not a WP:GNG rationale and I think the page should be redirected and possibly merged with the main Joan of Arc article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Joan of Arc. It makes sense to me that a person's timeline should be included in their biography.Borock (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anything merge to form a table of the principal events of her career. The full article is a long one. Even the lead is rather longer than enough to give an overview. We certainly should not keep a separate timeline article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: I agree that Joan of Arc is long, but not unbearably so. WP:Article size recommends A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed. The page is at 90 kB at the moment, but that appears to be mostly pictures, bibliographical details, "see also" links and so on. I checked and the figure dropped to 45 kB, and according to wordcounttools.com it's a little under 8,000 words. It's not a short article, but adding the Timeline's 500 words on would not be that much of an extra buden on readers. That said, Joan of Arc is an FA as is, and the page currently under discussion is completely unsourced, so I'm not going to openly condone copy-pasting the current page into the larger article without thorough checking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- other articles on historical figures do not routinely include "Timeline" sections, so I don't think a merge would be appropriate. This information is already included in the main article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Obviously I sympathize, but isn't your rationale that other articles on historical figures do not routinely include "Timeline" sections more in line with a "Keep" !vote than a "Delete" one? Do you mean we don't usually write "Timelines" on other historical figures? (Note that I wouldn't actually disagree with either of these statements.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "we don't usually write "Timelines" on other historical figures" is what I was saying. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- What I was suggesting was that the present article might be converted into a table giving the dates of the principal events of her life, which might follow the lead, perhaps opposite the Table of contents if that is feasible. This should not require separate citations, since the dates should already be in the text. If people do not like that, then the article should be a plain delete. I am certainly not advocating keeping the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:31, 11 September 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. J04n(talk page) 18:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuele Franz

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NAUTHOR. While there are several articles discussing him they all seem to be local coverage. He does not seem to have attracted wider attention. According to the article most of his books are published by a publishing house which he established. There is no corresponding it.wiki article. Jbh ^Talk 13:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page at it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuele_Franz was deleted. [7] appears to be the deletion discussion. In a seven-day discussion, there was only one comment, "Despite the voice extender continues to delete alerts, my voice seems too self in order to establish that the person is encyclopedic. (See also Extended Thinking) - .mau. ✉ 22:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)" Unscintillating (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all of the books were from Audax. I looked at one of the references in the article and it was legit. It said that Noam Chomsky had given a one-sentence reply to the author. I also found an AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extended Thinking, where @DGG: declared this topic notable. Also, [8]. Its all slim, but the publisher Audax Editrice might be considered here for inclusion in a suitable topic, as it is good to get publishers listed at Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but it must be rewritten. Aduex is his personal project, but it publishes books written by others also, and most of its publications are literary, not pseudo scientific mysticism. I agree that we should try to write articles on publishers even if it means a generous interpretation of sourcing, because this is of great hel pto the users of WP in evaluating sources. If we were to have only one article, it should be on hte publisher. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this author knows his shit.64.134.243.113 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough coverage demonstrating this person is notable, nor have his works garnered enough wide spread attention or noteworthiness to demonstrate significance, hence this person fails GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The fact that he owns a publishing concern or is self-published appears to be trivial details. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial page with insufficient sourcing to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at this point not significant coverage to be notable; promo piece and fails WP:AUTHOR. Kierzek (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WorldCat shows no library holdings, nothing listed here then convinces otherwise we can keep and improve this to a suitable and confident state. SwisterTwister talk 02:26, 19 September 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 01:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Operator

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Unreleased short by unknowns. noq (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another part of a Matt Senior-related WP:Walled garden. Not notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Short film that fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. — Sam Sailor 03:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poorly disguised promo for a non-notable short film. --Finngall ^talk 23:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I can't find anything to show that this movie is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 13 September 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. And a week one (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Beats

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

Promotional tone, very poorly sourced, social media ELs etc. I can't tell if he's notable from this Jimfbleak (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Jimfbleak (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sympathetic to the problems in RS coverage for bands in the 2010s - the Internet took out the music press when it took out the record industry, which as a former music journalist I think is good for humanity but bad when you're looking for RS coverage for Wikipedia - but this is almost entirely unsourced and won't survive as it stands. I'm holding off from saying "delete" because the Earmilk minor RS looks promising, and is about a US tour which implies there's people who would care and look them up in WP. But is there anything else actually about the band in third-party sources above blog level? - David Gerard (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? There's far more coverage of 2010s popular music available online that there is for just about any other topic, especially anything in any field that was popular before 1990. We should make allowances for WP:FUTON bias, but this the field that suffers from it least of all. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really - it's overwhelmingly in blogs these days - David Gerard (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: tough one... I think there is very likely an article or two on them in Mixmag, the UK's leading dance music magazine, but as they put very little of their content online, it would mean searching through all the print copies, and I don't have access to them. DJ Plus One is certainly notable and his fame within dance circles before the duo was formed will almost certainly have been enough to get the attention of dance journalists to write about the group. The fact they have mixed a fabric.live album would make my vote lean towards "keep" - Fabric is (at least until this Tuesday's coming hearing) one of the world's leading nightclubs, and they don't choose non-entities to mix their albums. Richard3120 (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Probably sufficiently prominent to be included, they had a minor Billboard chart placing ([9]), and there's some RS coverage around, e.g. [10], [11], [12]. --Michig (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig - David Gerard (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Michig and other brief coverage such as this in Fact. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:29, 13 September 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. The "keep" comments do not seriously attempt to address the notability guidelines' inclusion requirements. Sandstein 17:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lockdown (Transformers)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable characters from a notable television series. It is clear that the show exists. It is clear that these characters exist. —Mythdon 07:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:V. The topic needs to satisfy WP:N, which it currently fails to do. TTN (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge somewhere. The article's a mess. The slew of unreliable sources are not convincing me that this character has any independent real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mythdon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Mythdon has not made a valid point, it's sort of pointless cite his argument. TTN (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article's many sources show that the character has received attention within the Transformers universe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are currently used in a meaningful way, so they're irrelevant. They cite primary information, so they have no basis in establishing notability. TTN (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some cartoon characters are somewhat obscure characters. Others are quite obviously notable. I feel that Lockdown falls under the obviously notable scope. I'm not going to try to justify an article to individuals who seem to have a negligible knowledge of the topic at hand. Also, the lazy nature of the nomination with a seemingly 20-second google check makes me feel that it might not even justify a response. Bad nomination overall that I consider to be time-wasting. Blatant keep. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a proper argument. The article has no proper sources to satisfy WP:N, so it is not currently notable by Wikipedia standards. Your own personal standards of notability are irrelevant. TTN (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article was created almost ten years ago over two dozen established editors have edited the article and have not indicated any notability concerns. Choosing to avoid doing at least a little research on the topic makes it sound like you do not respect you fellow wikipedians. That in itself invalidates your opinions somewhat from my point of view. Pwolit iets (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with anything. Pretty much none of the Transformers articles follow this site's guidelines. That in particular shows a lack of care from those involved in improving these pages to any reasonable standard. That in ten years nobody has bothered to improve these articles shows that they are basically relics from a different Wikipedia, better suited to Wikia. The most well-intentioned person can create the worst article, but taking their feelings into account is pointless beyond showing them how to actually make an article without being overly critical. Considering that this is not a new article created by such a person, it hardly matters. TTN (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember that this article was created before google search purged much of their archives so it was definitely easily (demonstrably) notable for at least 7 years. So current search returns are a bit biased against Lockdown because he's an older character of this franchise. Nonetheless, as an avid transformers fan since the 90,s I can assure you that this article is not only notable but easily so. This nomination was done too hasty.Pwolit iets (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means provide sources showing it. The biggest problem with these articles is that people seem to conflate not-notable with not-important. The character may well be quite notable within the frame-work of the franchise, but that means nothing in terms of notability on Wikipedia. There are either sources or not, nothing else. If there are no sources, it doesn't mean the topic isn't important. It just means it has no place having an article. TTN (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently come accross articles that have zero (yes literally zero) sources. Some of them also have very high view counts. That means that many people are aware that the article is poorly sourced. But the reason I avoided sourcing them and other people did likewise is because the frequenters of the article think its common knowledge; i.e. non-controversial info. Therefore there's no realy need to prove it. Its akin to asking someone to sources whether cats exist. No need. Why? Because its common knowledge that they do. Thats why its preferable for nominators to stick with subject areas they are proficient at. Pwolit iets (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has standards. If those standards aren't properly applied to all articles, it's because there are millions of articles and only so many people to actively edit them. I don't believe there will ever be a time where even 10% of articles even meet the proper criteria due to that. That doesn't really matter though. This fails to meet those standards in its current form and nobody has shown proof that it can meet those standards. I have every right to challenge the article's existence in that case. TTN (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case there is always the (imo preferable) option of placing tags on the article to encourage improvement, rather than purging/obliterating. Pwolit iets (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Josh Milburn's comments. Does not appear to have any independent real-world notability. I am not convinced by any of the arguments to keep the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect if needed, because there are been consensus there's no inherited notability confirmed for its own article simply because of the series itself; there's nothing to suggest we can improve this to the levels of accepting. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per Josh Milburn and Swister. There is nothing to indicate any kind of real-world notability. If the best the keep side can do is WP:ITEXISTS and obnoxious inaccurate tirades against delete !voters, then it's clearly a hopeless case. Reyk _YO! 10:57, 19 September 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McGuinn

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

Fails WP:BASIC. No coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:FILMMAKER. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Filmaker has some good references and even a feature in variety (Magazine) "Variety Article". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjeffersonkk (talk • contribs) 23 August 2016 (UTC)— Tjeffersonkk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete: Utterly NN filmmaker. While his films have garnered some coverage, he has not, failing WP:GNG and every other measure of WP:NOTABILITY known to wiki editors. Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: - Sadly this article needs more references, the subject isn't (yet) notable for inclusion, but maybe in the future - or unless more references can be sourced. 80.193.74.158 (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article lacks RS and does not present meaningful biographical information on the subject. The Variety source referenced above is (a very brief) "Review: ‘Sun Kissed’" -- which is about the movie, not the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 14 September 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. Noting that none of the cited discussions concerning notability of diplomats was ever formally closed with a clear consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaliya Wickramasuriya

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being a former ambassador for a country does not confer automatic notability. Also just because he is the cousin of a former president does not make him notable - see WP:NOTINHERITED. Dan arndt (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe an ambassadorial position makes him pass WP:POLITICIAN. I believe any ambassador is notable, and I am not aware of any AfD deleting their bio. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are definitely not inherently notable, quite a few have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus as per WP:DIPLOMAT any individual (including any diplomat) needs to meet the criteria under WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO and not just be solely reliant on the fact that they were a diplomat (in this case an ambassador). After going through the article there is little there that supports him being considered as notable. Dan arndt (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:DIPLOMAT and it is an essay, not a policy. In my opinion ambassadors pass WP:POLITICIAN and should be auto-notable by the virtue of their position. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

again you are arguing inherent notability. in fact there was a discussion to give ambassadors inherent notability which gained no consensus. LibStar (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. no inherent notability in being ambassador. Coverage merely confirms he held the role. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If being ambassador to the USA isn't notable enough, a quick Google search shows that he passes WP:GNG.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please show the actual outcome of your search WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's at the top of this Afd but here you go: Google. Includes over 400 news links.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please list actual sources rather than routine coverage. Most of that coverage is not in depth . Please also read WP:GOOGLEHITS LibStar (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See below for some source examples. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ambassadors are not presumed notable. The sources are not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ambassador of any country to the United States is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being an ambassador to the United States does not make an individual notable. Dan arndt (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agree with Dan. You can't state something is automatically notable without referring to an actual guideline which says that. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN does not grant inherent notability to ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Article makes no claim of notability except possibly ambassador to US which is not sufficient. MB 21:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources, and has received coverage for being a former ambassador, for his service as Consul General of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in Los Angeles, and for his role as company President of Ceylon Royal Teas. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep - while we have tended to delete ambassadors from small nations, we have tended to keep those who have held multiple posts or to/from large nations. The subject was ambassador to three major posts, including a stint in as ambassador to the United States, serving in DC, a diplomatic hot spot. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 19 September 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of years by country

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

Delete. Serves no good purpose and adds no value. It has been badly maintained and its presentation is poor. In any case, it is superfluous; it can only be viewed as a weak alternative to Category:Years by country which is of far greater use to the readers in terms of accessibility, readability and up-to-dateness. BoJó | talk UTC 15:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is where WP:CLT is a helpful policy to keep in mind. It isn't superfluous, it's simply in addition, for editors who for whatever reason may not choose to browse by category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also unclear how it's "badly maintained", since each blue link goes to a "List of years in foo" main article. Now, I see that the nominator is part of both the Time and Year Wikiprojects and is likely well-versed in those fields, so maybe there's some issue that I don't understand. I'll keep a watch on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk)

Delete WP:CLT intones that a list article might have some value-added over using an existing category; I see no evidence of that here. The only reasonable rationale is WP:AOAL: "Can be referenced to justify the inclusion of listed articles.". Is that what this is? Chris Troutman (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, again, it's the first criterion of WP:AOAL, for one: "Good for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia." Some editors might conceivably prefer to browse in list form. Plus, "Can include items that are not linked (e.g., List of compositions by Franz Schubert), or, if appropriate, red links." My !vote remains the same but I'll certainly defer to a consensus on this, best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: I was the GA Reviewer for Film career of Audie Murphy, which is a real value-added list. (The only reason it wasn't selected for FLC was the huge amount of prose.) While readers could use this list to browse, it's unfinished and I don't see any value over the category. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film career of Audie Murphy has a filmography, but of course it's much more than that. Very nice article. This one here is indeed a bare-bones list. However I'm pretty inclusive, heck, all-inclusive, what it comes to lists per WP:CLT. Pretty much be in favour of every category having some form of master list, as allowed by policy -- or how I read the policy. You would probably think that'd be a pointless duplication. Let's see how this one goes, best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...it's simply in addition, for editors..." - exactly, it's not a page for readers. DexDor^(talk) 20:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as a purely navigational list. Not redundant to the category per WP:NOTDUP. It should be renamed Lists of years by country, certainly, and all of the red links either removed or created (if there are pages, rather than just categories, for that country). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At best Weak keep -- I do not like annual categories or related list articles. Categories probably do it better. However, while we have list articles, we probably need a list of them. I checked the Ecuador article which listed many years, but only about half a dozen actually had an article. It might be better to fell the whole tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ --> Abstain. Original comment: this is an uber-list of WP:LISTCRUFT list articles. I randomly followed to List_of_years_in_Libya and to 2003 in Libya and got: "The following lists events that will happen in 2003 in Libya." (emphasis mine). "Fell the whole tree" may be the right suggestion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 2003 in Libya is not nominated for deletion. For now, it -- along with hundreds of other similar lists -- exist. If they're deleted, this one should be, too, but as long as they exist this is a valid list that serves a navigational purpose (regardless of the quality of the articles it navigates). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I meant I found the whole chain unnecessary, including List of years in Libya. As we are discussing List of years by country I don't see a reason to keep it, as the "head" of this unnecessary chain. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - for example List of years in Lithuania says "This is a list of years in Lithuania. See also the timeline of Lithuanian history. For only articles about years in Lithuania that have been written, see Category:Years in Lithuania." (where the timeline is a redlink) which fails SELFREF in several ways. DexDor^(talk) 20:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial list which adds no real value for readers. Kierzek (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to Wikipedia namespace (e.g. as a subpage of a relevant wikiproject) as the list isn't a page for readers (and it's not a list of years; it's a list of countries, but for readers we have better lists e.g. List of sovereign states). DexDor^(talk) 20:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, redundant to category. Sandstein 06:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or maybe open an RFC, see my comments below). My first thought was, Huh? I have no clue what this is, so we should delete it. Then, I explored a little, and changed my mind to, Oh, this is how you would find articles about what happened in a particular country in a particular year. That's really useful, but badly named, so we should keep it, but give it a better name. Then, I explored some more and randomly looked at List_of_years_in_Lithuania, and discovered it was almost totally redlinks. But, Category:Years in Lithuania had some bluelinks, and clicking through one of them eventually led me to Podlaskie Voivodeship (1513–1795). So, while I agree that while the list-of-lists idea might be a useful navigation tool, in practice, it's so unlikely to be maintained, that it's worthless. Categories just plain do a better job for this. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - It seems like those !voting delete are largely in favor of deleting the whole tree/chain/whatnot. So to be clear, that would mean deleting e.g. 2014 in Ireland, which is just a random recent one I picked and looks to have 173 references. If that should be kept, does that mean the deletion chain would simply be this nominated article and the various "List of years in [country]"? List of years in Ireland, sticking with that example, is, surprisingly, mostly bluelinks (size/quality varies significantly of course). To that end it seems like a pretty natural navigational list to me (presuming there are articles and not just categories, it seems hard to say there's a redundancy issue). And if we have a bunch lists on a theme, a navigational list between those (the present discussion) seems sensible. That's my thinking anyway, but @RoySmith, Sandstein, DexDor, Kierzek, and K.e.coffman: I'm not sure based on your !votes where in there it loses support. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to go ahead and add some additional examples: List of years in Afghanistan is blue for the whole 20th century; List of years in France is blue for every year since 1700, and mostly blue going back to 1500; Germany is complete since 1871; List of years in Sweden has only 5 redlinks in the years since 1520; and List of years in the United States's only redlinks are in the future. Just going from the last one, 2016 in the United States is a 156k article with 157 references. I'm not saying definitively those are necessary lists, because I suspect a bunch may be copied from other lists (births and deaths, for example), but while those exist the "by country" seems logical, and while "by country" exists, the list of lists seems logical. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think 2014 in Ireland is a terrible article. Lots of things happened in in Ireland in 2014. Who decided which events were important enough to get onto that list? What are the inclusion criteria? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. But that's not nominated here. "fell the whole tree" was mentioned above, but there are no deletion notices on these various pages and nobody has been notified. If those are deleted, then of course this one should be, but while those exist, it shouldn't matter if they're great articles or trash for the purpose of a navigational list. They're extant Wikipedia lists on a theme. Perhaps a speedy renomination along with the rest? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting we slip 2014 in Ireland into this AfD. But, I do agree that if there's a constellation of lists (i.e. the year lists we're talking about here) which make up logical structure, it's silly to pick at them one by one. Maybe the best thing to do would be to put this AfD on ice and start a more broad-themed RFC on the whole hierarchy. Then we could come to a coherent decision. Maybe that's keep them all. Maybe that's delete them all. Maybe that's keep some and delete others. But, if we're not going to do the RFC thing, then, taken as an isolated decision, I think deleting this particular list makes sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article essentially contains no other actual information therefore this is best confined to a category, which is what commonly happens with such information. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Lists of years by country. This qualifies per WP:NOTDUP, is a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP, and functions as a set index article. Some key points:

People actually use the List of years by country article: 1,620 page views in the last 90 days
Conversely, Category:Years by country only received 493 pages views in the last 90 days.
Deletion will not improve the encyclopedia in this case; instead it will just make the encyclopedia more difficult to navigate for readers interested in these topics.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 19 September 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 01:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Brown (basketball)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL. Basketball notability only assumed for a few leagues and the article claims only minor-leagues in France and Germany. Does not appear to have received ongoing, significant coverage from reliable and independent sources Rikster2 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:46, 13 September 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 01:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Bou Kanaan

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL. Only some leagues indicate notability by this guideline and Lebanon is not one of them. Does not appear to have received significant, on-going do age from independent and reliable sources. Rikster2 (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Battle (basketball)

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL. Only a few leagues indicate notability, and none of the leagues listed qualify. No evidence of ongoing significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Rikster2 (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - I feel that the sources added by User:Editorofthewiki are satisfactory to meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I improved this article. He played professionally in several countries and posted good stats. He was a First Team All-CAA selection. There are a number of articles on him in the Philadelphia Inquierer here. Should be a good amount of articles in Spanish since he won a championship there. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their is a ton of references and sources available about this player that isn't listed in the article...even in Spanish. Recommend adding additional reliable sources to strengthen.Rniterjr (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do tell us the sources. I believe you, but I'd like to add to the article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added more sources/references. will continue building more on this articleRniterjr (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable ESPN Worldwide NEWS Rniterjr (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having an ESPN.com stats page does not demonstrate notability. EVERY division 1 college basketball player has one and I can tell you that the majority are not notable. Not sure if Courtside.com is a reliable source or not. Rikster2 (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHe is NOTABLE. Wikipedia states, "Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria: 1. Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. see WP:FOOTYN Robert Battle is a player for The Liga Nacional de Básquet (abbreviated LNB, and literally in English "National Basketball League") and has it's own Wikipedia Page It is the top level of the Argentine basketball league system. Additionally, Basketball figures are presumed notable if they have appeared in one game as either a player or head coach in the original American Basketball Association, Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto, Euroleague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League (Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Serie A, Women's National Basketball Association, or a "SIMILAR MAJOR PROFESSIONAL SPORTS LEAGUE." see WP:NBASKETBALL Rniterjr (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't meet the guideline today as written - he has played in none of the leagues listed. If you are trying to say that one or more of the leagues he has played in is a "similar league," then demonstrate this is so, it isn't a given. Your best bet is to prove he meets GNG (which the basketball guideline is meant to indicate anyway) by finding independent reliable sources that discuss this player beyond transaction and game reports. This is not soccer, so their guideline that every professional player is notable doesn't factor in. Rikster2 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He meets the guideline as playing in a "similar league." The official website is http://www.laliganacional.com.ar/laliga/club/quimsa It clearly lists Robert Battle in the lineup. You will also find him here in a more recent article from 9 Sept. 2016. Upon viewing the webpage and just above the title, it lists "LIGA NACIONAL DE BÁSQUET" which is notable in Wikipedia. This demonstrates that Robert Battle plays for Liga Nacional de Basquet and noted on Wikipedia as the "TOP LEVEL of the ARGENTINE BASKETBALL LEAGUE." I'd say that this meets a "similar league" as the NBA. This league is also noted on Wikipedia as having been designed similar to the NBA. Furthermore, The Liga Nacional de Basquet is also mentioned in a separate Wikipedia article Leon Najnudel that this league is the first nationwide yearly professional basketball league in Argentina. Rniterjr (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the guideline were meant to cover every top level league it would say so. I was involved with crafting the current guideline so I know what the intent was. Its intent us to help editors with little understanding of basketball understand that some players beyond those in the guideline might be notable so not to AfD out of hand. It isn't meant to be a loophole to cover every league not named. If that were the case we'd have a broader guideline like soccer. If you think this guy is notable, demonstrate this by providing sources that prove it. If you can't do that then it doesn't matter if he meets a sport guideline, because GNG supersedes them. Rikster2 (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline covers a similar major professional sports league. I'd say that "La Liga Nacional de Basquet" is a "MAJOR PROFESSIONAL SPORTS LEAGUE"...not solely based on being a top level league, but a national and notable top level league. I'd recommend the article be removed from AfD and placed in WP:AFI Their is a ton of references and sources available about this player. Recommend the originator possibly even consult with a language translator for non-English sources.Rniterjr (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It covers similar leagues in that said league would receive the same type of media coverage as the four (and only four) current men's leagues included enjoy - the NBA, Australian NBL, Italian Serie A and Spanish ACB. This coverage is what makes it likely that the sources exist to make the assumption that players who play in even one game in those leagues probably meet GNG. If you think the Argentine League gets that level of coverage, you need to provide evidence this is so. I am not going to withdraw this AfD because I still haven't seen sufficient sources in the article or in this discussion that tells me Battle is notable. I did a WP:BEFORE search and it was not compelling. If you think that doing a Spanish-language search will definitely turn up sources that prove this player is notable then I suggest you perform one - I am not the one trying to establish notability for this player. Rikster2 (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia clearly lists Liga Nacional de Basquet of Argentina under Americas in the "SAME CATEGORY" as the NBA. I have proven my case on multiple occasions to demonstrate that this league is equivalent to that of the NBA. Wikipedia shouts notable for this league. Josh Martin, NBA Lead Writer for bleacher reporter has ranked this league as #6 of 8 as the Best Basketball League in the World. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1291287-power-ranking-the-best-basketball-leagues-in-the-world-outside-of-the-nba Furthermore, Wikipedia also reads that The Argentina national basketball team, officially nicknamed El Alma Argentina[1] (Spanish: The Argentine Soul), represents Argentina in basketball international competitions, and is controlled by the Argentine Basketball Federation. Argentina is the only national team in the FIBA Americas zone that has won the quintuplet crown: FIBA World Championship (they won the first edition, in 1950), Olympic Gold Medal (2004), FIBA Diamond Ball (2008), FIBA Americas Championship (2001 and 2011) and Pan American Gold Medal (1995). They have also won 13 South American Basketball Championships, as well as many youth championships. The Argentine representative was also the first to defeat a United States national team with a full squad of NBA players. They did so by 87–80 in the 2002 FIBA World Championship held in Indianapolis. In that tournament, Argentina came second behind FR Yugoslavia, losing the final in overtime.

Due to the series of good results since the beginning of the 2000s (decade), Argentina reached the first position in the FIBA Men's Ranking at the end of the 2008 Olympic Games. Argentina is a founding member of the International Federation of Basketball (FIBA) and has South America's longest basketball tradition. Again, the league is VERY NOTABLE and backed by Wikipedia.Rniterjr (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if you are seriously going to try and argue the Argentine League is on the level of the NBA then you are not reasonable. Being on a list of leagues for various countries doesn't put it on par. But why are you ducking proving notability for Robert Battle, is it because you aren't able to find the sources? Even if the league met the guideline (it does not), it doesn't grant blanket notability. I am still challenging the notability of THIS PLAYER. If someone meets a sport-specific guideline but flunks GNG (shouldn't happen of the guideline is written correctly) the article can still be deleted because GNG is the super ending guideline. If you cannot prove the notability of Robert Battle using WP:RELIABLESOURCES, then just say so. Rikster2 (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that's not what I was exactly meaning...If I asked what's the top basketball league in the U.S., you'd say the NBA...hands down. Anyone else would say the Liga Nacional de Basquet is the top league for the respective location. Their both the best of the best and I simply don't want the Liga Nacional de Basquet to be watered down....my apologies for the confusion.Rniterjr (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does meet GNG using reliable sources. If you examine the additions I made to the article you would see as much. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDDY - I appreciate your good faith efforts and feel like it's close enough that I will withdraw my nomination based on this. What I want to be very clear about is that I do NOT accept the argument that the Argentine League is a "similar league" to those named in WP:NBASKETBALL in that EVERY player who has even appeared for 5 minutes of one game can be presumed notable. Since this is the second AfD I have been involved in recently that has tried to use that statement as a loophole to skirt proving notability, I plan to pursue removing this line from the guideline. This is despite being one of the main proponents for keeping it vs. adding a bunch of other leagues. Thank you for your work on this article. Rikster2 (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Cuiqing

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

Please check if it asserts notability (no citations no categories ) Varun FEB2003 17:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly notable according to WP:NSPORT. Citations added. JDWFC (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn Thanks! Varun FEB2003 10:34, 12 September 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 G4. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin G Loapure

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

Does not appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Most of the references given are to the subject's own website, lokapure.com. His webpage [13], indicates a visiting appointment and then an Assistant Professor appointment, followed by two research type industry positions. He lists, some publications and several patents, but his GScholar profile [14] gives a total of only 44 citations with an h-index of 4. There is one solid reference given to a news-story about him, ref number 2 [15]. But there is nothing else in the record that I can see to indicate passing either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO or WP:GNG, and I am not seeing enough here to justify notability on the basis of either of these. Nsk92 (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:PROF or the GNG. Joe Roe (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hmm, something interesting here. Apparently this article had existed before under the title Sachin G Lokapure, and was deleted in March 2015 in a prior AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachin G Lokapure. The creator of the current article, User:Dr ram staya, first blanked [16] that prior AfD, and then created this new article, by omitting one letter, 'k', from the last name of the subject in the title. Probably qualifies for CSD G4. Nsk92 (talk) 17:26, 11 September 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 as it was speedily deleted by Rmhermen under the criteria of G12 (non-admin closure) Ayub407^talk 09:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny - Xi He

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

Not notable, of the three sources given, one is the official website, one is to Baidu Baike (basically a Chinese version of Wikipedia), and the other one is to China Daily, which is the only source I can find on the web. I can't find any others. The article is promotional as well, with one section which is basically just an interview with the director. I can't see this article being brought up to an acceptable standard. Seagull123 Φ 16:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences

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

Promotional article on likely predatory journal. Journal established in 2015, not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Journal claims an impact factor, but 1/ having been established only last year, an IF cannot yet be calculated and 2/ the journal is not indexed by Thomson Reuters. In fact, the IFs claimed (there are actual several...) are from bogus "indexing" outfits that provide a meaningless "impact factor" to whomever pays. I originally tagged this as G11 (spam) and still think that applies, but the tag was removed by a newbie editor without further explanation. In any case, whether promotional or not, or whether predatory or not is not really the issue here. What is the issue is that there is not a shred of notability. The article meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's on Beall's list so it's almost certainly a predatory journal, which we should not be in the business of promoting or lending legitimacy to. Joe Roe (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any notability (or even a good grasp of English). No independent references at all . Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. Clearly fails WP:NJournals, WP:PROMO, WP:OR, and WP:42.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:PROMO on a predatory journal. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Bbb23 as created by a blocked editor evading a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost There Records

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

Non-notable label; article written by one of their owners. Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I have been trying to explain to this author the sort of references we need, but none of the three references in the article mentions "Almost There Records" at all. An earlier version had references to WP articles List of Universal Music Group labels and Symphonic Distribution, but WP is, as we know, not a reliable source, and Almost There Records only appeared in those articles because it had been recently inserted, unsourced, by this author and by an SPA IP

There are at least two other outfits by this name, but as they were operating in 2008 and 2013 they are not the same as this one, established 2015. All I can find about this one is its Facebook page ("Wanna know more about #Almost_There_Records Go check our #Wikipedia page") and a website address http://almosttheremusic.com/ which is a deadlink. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a place like Facebook where you set up a page to tell the world about yourselves when you are just starting out. The label does not get to have an article until it has actually achieved enough to have been the subject of substantial independent comment in reliable, published sources. JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a reference has been added which does at least mention the label, but it is an interview, so basically them talking about themselves - not enough for notability in my view. JohnCD (talk) 13:12, 13 September 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. WP:G7 NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Hickey (Investor)

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

My reason to delete this is that the owner of the company was not happy with the page name and wanted to replace it and recreate a new page with the corrected URL and page name}} Pmpierce (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vanity article, appears at best to be placed in Wikipedia by someone associated with the subject or at worst by a pay for creation editor. reddogsix (talk) 15:20, 11 September 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 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Godsent

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

Non-notable eSports team organization. This article was previously deleted under WP:CSD#A7, but later requested to be undeleted and userfied; and now the userspace page was moved back to the article namespace. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this team has been covered in ESPN, The Daily Dot, Sport1 and other reliable sources. The A7 deletion was probably warranted since that version was unsourced, but this current version is adequately sourced.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Prisencolin. To his sources, I'll add Yahoo! eSports and Dutch IGN. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to large popularity in eSports recently. Godsent's new roster has consisted of previous notable Fnatic players, which now makes it a high tier team. 08adamsm (talk) 06:50, 13 September 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. No argument for deletion has been presented. Merging should be addressed through normal channels. postdlf (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Altai mountains

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

There seems to be no reason for this list to exist separate from Altai Mountains. A discussion and consensus would be useful here. Fiddle Faddle 09:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Altai Mountains, no need for such as short list outside a parent article. It could also be templatified and as a list transcluded in articles on notable Altai mountains. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close Merge discussions are not held at AFD, see WP:Merging. WP:SK#1 probably applies. Thincat (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' (?) -- there are 19 entries, organized by height. I don't see why the list should be deleted. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 12 September 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 01:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Guglielmo

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

There's nothing here that crosses the bar of WP:CRIMINAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG BlackAmerican (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable and passing WP:GNG and CRIMINAL. However, the article is a mess, and needs sourcing. but bad article quality is not a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How is this anything but a routine, if grisly, murder? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleete nothing about the murder or coverage that raises it to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also am not finding anything to suggest both the needed substance and depth for both a convincing and improved article. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 16 September 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 01:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Dryden

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

Procedural AFD: died at AFD once, then was PRODed again. PROD nomination was: "Non-notable internet personality. References are almost entirely made up of the subject's own Tumblr and Twitter accounts, the record label that he is signed to, and unreliable sources such as "The Skinny" and "We the Unicorn". Any reliable sources (e.g. the BBC) mention only things that this individual has been involved with and don't mention him at all; notability is not inherited." I concur. This looks plausibly good until you look at the content and sources; it's WP:PUFFERY. David Gerard (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator and WP:BIO. Not an independently notable Internet celebrity. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the level of notability to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 15 September 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 01:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamalangan

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

Procedural AFD, PRODed a second time. Dan arndt PRODed it with: "Was previously the subject of a PROD and was deleted. Has subsequently been recreated but still doesn't address the issues for why it was originally deleted - in that it fails to establish notability under WP:NMUSIC." I concur. Google and GNews turn up nothing actually about him. Closest I can find to third-party attention is this SBS podcast, which IMO isn't nearly enough. David Gerard (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly doesn't satisfy WP:NMUSIC, should delete & salt. Dan arndt (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it should be noted that the creator of this article is a sock puppet of the previous article's original creator. Dan arndt (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 13 September 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 01:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bretagne (rescue dog)

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

Delete, per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS. No sustained coverage over a period of time. SST flyer 08:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG, appeared on CNN, Today Show, and has an Obituary on the NY Times BlackAmerican (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obituaries in the media worldwide set my Wiki-tail wagging. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. good sourcing. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is not with the amount of coverage this topic has received, it's that most of the coverage were obituaries published within a very short timeframe. While this is a newsworthy topic, it's not notable in the Wikipedia sense. SST flyer 13:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SUSTAINED, delete. --Izno (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. I understand that this could be argued to be deleted on the grounds of WP:NOTNEWS (not sure on WP:SUSTAINED as I found a few articles from before her death), but being the last known survivor of the 9/11 attack gives the article a little edge over simply being just another search dog. The fact that she was the last known rescue dog from the attacks, gives the topic some notability that goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED. In my understanding, the fact is notable in itself to keep the article. Ya sh ! 10:51, 18 September 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 per WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daya Angni Nonga

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

Non-notable film. SST flyer 08:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 08:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 08:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to meet the WP:NFF standard. Anup [Talk] 15:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article creator is now blocked as a result of this sockpuppetry investigation. AllyD (talk) 06:34, 13 September 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. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spicerpuffs

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

Non-notable fan fiction. SST flyer 08:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:N; not finding any coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say this meets CSD A7 as well, if not quite G11. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 10:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Search of the Ultra-Sex

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

Purely promotional piece for an otherwise non-notable film outside of France. Article contributors FilmsChecker (talk · contribs), CinéPassion (talk · contribs) and M-synec2 (talk · contribs) are single-purpose accounts dedicated to this movie and its authors. Suggest blocking or at least warning them. — JFG ^talk 08:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment that if the film is notable in France, it's notable for the English Wikipedia. Notability doesn't have to be international and France is obviously a major country. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gnews search under either version of its name reveals more than enough coverage to meet NFILM. Searching for the French title, I found this 2015 review from the Hollywood Reporter, for example. And there is enough French-language coverage in reliable sources. There's certainly tone issues with the article, I agree. But the film is notable enough. User:CinéPassion and the others are indeed a single purpose accounts, in the sense that they're all devoted to articles on Nicolas & Bruno ("a famous duo of French film directors..."; I've removed that peacockery) and their films. I was going to !vote keep on the basis of coverage, but the whole thing is obviously so promotional that I'm sympathetic to the idea that WP:TNT applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: Thanks for your comments. I just checked the French article: it's a puff piece concocted by the same SPAs FilmsChecker and CinéPassion. Moreover, on fr:Talk:Nicolas et Bruno, CinéPassion says "Je travaille pour Nicolas" i.e. "I work for Nicolas", proceeds to plead for an extension of his client's article in anticipation of future projects, then gets warned on WP:COI and WP:NOT. — JFG ^talk 21:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the nominator that some larger action may be required for these accounts; let's see how things unfold here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as topic is notable despite its author inexperience or postings on other Wikipedias. What may or my not happen on Wikipedia France does not dictate what is notable to Wikipedia English, nor tell us how we interpret OUR guides and policies. Extensive coverage in French shows notability to France, and being notable to and in France is fine for Wikipedia. Sorry nominator, we do not demand English-language coverage for all topics, nor do we demand nor expect notable French topics be notable outside that country. See WP:NONENG. We improve what is notable and improvable... not delete. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified such as the review in the Hollywood Reporter as well as French sources. The article can be edited to remove overpromotional content. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 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. The sources cited by the one (diligent) advocate of "keep" haven't convinced anybody else. Sandstein 16:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Merlini

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

Extremely promotional. I just cleaned a whole lot of nonsense from it. Written so promotionaly that it needs to be deleted. Maybe he is notable but not this article. If not delete I suggest move to the Draft space where this can be cleaned. See talk page also for previous discussions Varun FEB2003 14:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As failing WP:ENT: the sources, consisting almost entirely of tabloids, zines, ?blogs and fansites, do no indicate any WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE in coverage. Equally, he has no significantly-sized fanbase, won no major accolades, and the only contribution he has made- holding his breath- is neither "'unique, prolific or innovative'." _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ As per nom. Varun FEB2003 18:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the nominator - unless stated otherwise, it's assumed that nominator believes article should be deleted so you don't need to comment again Appable (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - @Appable: I know but I saw this in a number of AFD's thats why I also voted but will take care from now. Varun FEB2003 11:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable escape artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Boyd, David Richard (2010). Dodging the Toxic Bullet: How to Protect Yourself from Everyday Environmental Health Hazards. Vancouver: Greystone Books. p. 16. ISBN 1553656210. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
  The book notes:
  
  In 2008, a remarkable world record for unassited breath-holding was set by Germany's Tom Sietas, who held his breath for ten minutes and twelve seconds. In 2009, a world record for assisted breath-holding was set by David Merlini, who held his breath for more than twenty minutes while submerged in a tank full of water at a Formula 1 auto race in Bahrain. He gained an edge by breathing pure oxygen for half an hour before his stunt, thus super-oxygenating his blood. Unlike Sietas and Merlini, most people will past out after being deprived of oxygen for two or three minutes. After a brief period of unconsciousness, the heart will stop pumping. Within minutes, electrical activity in the brain will come to a halt because neurons are deprived of oxygen. This is the modern definition of biological death.
2. Balázs, Eszter (2004-12-02). "Escaping his dreams". The Budapest Sun. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Eszter Balázs meets David Merlini, the Hungarian escapologist who made everyone shiver when he was plunged into the Danube... encased in concrete.
  HE IS only 26-years old, but has already seen more danger and been in more perilous situations than most of us encounter in a lifetime. Could there be anything worse that suffocating, being burnt alive or being eaten by piranhas and sharks? For David Merlini, such risks are selfimposed and commonplace. Defeating them is his profession - a typical day in the office. "This is my job, my life," the young escapologist said in answer to a question about what motivates him to encase himself in concrete and ask to be lowered into the Danube. In fact, this very job almost cost him his life. But still there is no better explanation for the whys. Merlini simply dreams up a challenge and then realizes it, moving from one death-defying situation to another.
  ...
  Born to an Italian father and a Hungarian mother, and raised from the age of three in Italy, Merlini was interested in the structure of the locks that he so skillfully dismantled. When he one day was given an illusionist's kit, his future career was founded. Remote-opening locks, electronic constructions and smoke machines were handmade in Merlini's laboratory. Electro-shocks were part of the daily routine, he added.
  Ten years later Merlini enrolled in night classes at the famous illusionist training institution, the Circolo Amici della Magia of Turin. "Lessons took place starting at 9pm as the students all had daytime jobs," Merlini remembers. "One night I was sitting in the library of the CADM reading about the great escapologist Houdini -born in Hungary as Erik Weiss - and I found that I was born exactly 52 years after his death at the age of 52 in 1926."
  ...
  His second fishy adventure involved piranhas:
  aired on the music channel MTV, Merlini was strung up on an iron cross and then lowered, upside down, into an aquarium full of the predatory fish. He was nibbled a bit, but escaped. "I am not afraid during action, it is more before and after," he said. When he was lowered into the Danube this August, the worst moments were those when he was just at the level of the river. "This river floats by at between 6.5 - 7km/h. A cold and mighty flood that just makes you feel very, very small." He spent three and a half minutes at the bottom of the Danube before he was back on the surface again, this time having escaped a concrete cube that he had spent 11 hours in previously while it set. Five million people saw the "production", he proudly informed me.
3. "Illúzió vagy titkos tudomány?" [Illusion or secret science?]. Hetek (in Hungarian). 2004-09-03. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
  The article notes:
  
  A tanévkezdés előtti napra világraszóló produkciót hirdetett meg David Merlini huszonhat éves illuzionista. Budapesten, a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia előtt az önmagát „a világ legfiatalabb szabadulóművészének” tituláló olasz-magyar származású Merlinit egy akváriumba engedték, majd rázúdítottak négy tonna betont. A betonba öntött férfit tíz órával később egy daru segítségével a Lánchídról a Dunába eresztették. Merlini jó két perccel később jelzőfénnyel a kezében felbukkant a víz színén. Az élő televíziós közvetítést kétmillióan nézték végig. David Merlini a múlt század leghíresebb, szintén magyar származású illuzionistája, Harry Houdini reinkarnációjának tartja magát. Egy nemzetközi hírű szakember, Rudy Steffish szerint Merlini „a harmadik évezred legnagyobb szabadítója”.
  From Google Translate:
  The day before the school year starts on the day the world David Merlini announced a twenty-six-year-old illusionist. Budapest, in front of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in itself Merlinit Italian-Hungarian descent, "the world's youngest szabadulóművészének" tituláló allowed an aquarium and rázúdítottak four tons of concrete. The man poured concrete ten hours later, a crane lowered the Golden Gate Bridge into the Danube. Merlini good two minutes later, the lights turned up his hand upon the water. The two million people watched live television. David Merlini most of the last century, also Hungarian-born illusionist, Harry Houdini reincarnation hold up. An internationally renowned expert Rudy Steffish according to Merlini "in the third millennium largest Savior."
4. "Chilly water beats record attempt". The Daily Telegraph. Australia. 2007-10-11. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
  The article notes:
  
  LOS ANGELES: He had the water tank, the handcuffs and even the hooded wetsuit.
  But Hungarian escape artist David Merlini just didn't have the ability to withstand cold water yesterday when he failed to break the world record for the longest time underwater without air.
  Setting out to beat a time of 8 minutes, 55 seconds, he abandoned his attempt after just 1 minute and 12 seconds due to the chilly water temperature.
  ...
  Merlini's capitulation stunned fans, who recalled his amazing past feats -- one of which included, ironically, being frozen inside a huge block of ice.
  He has also been buried in concrete and has escaped from a rocket's demolition.
  Merlini first mastered the art of escape in Hungary in 1995.
5. "New Houdini wannabe escapes from burning car". Deseret News. 1998-10-30. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
  The article notes:
  
  A 20-year-old escape artist who wants to be the next Harry Houdini has performed his greatest death-defying feat ever, emerging unscathed after being handcuffed inside a burning car.
  David Merlini performed the escape Thursday in Budapest. He said he models himself after Houdini, a native Hungarian who migrated to the United States. Houdini thrilled crowds with his improbable escapes until his death in 1926.
  Merlini was handcuffed to the steering wheel of a white Mercedes. The doors were shut, the car covered with jelly gasoline and set on fire as it was hoisted by a giant crane. It was dropped from 66 feet.
6. "A stunt to take your breath away". mX. 2007-10-11. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
7. Cary, Tom (2009-04-27). "Motor sport: Intense heat fails to derail Button". Irish Independent. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
  The article notes:
  
  The afternoon had begun in bizarre fashion when F1 commercial rights holder Bernie Ecclestone, Richard Branson and other VIPs gathered on the home straight to watch a Hungarian escape artist by the name of David Merlini break the world record for holding his breath underwater.
  Submerged in a Perspex tank, Merlini managed 21mins and 29secs before being carried out virtually unconscious, prompting Ecclestone (78) to totter towards him to offer his congratulations. Merlini, no doubt deprived of oxygen, planted a smacker on the diminutive maestro's forehead.
8. Leporatti, Claudia (2016-06-24). "UNGHERIA: Il mago della fuga David Merlini apre il Museo di Houdini" [HUNGARY: The Wizard of David Merlini escape opens the Houdini Museum]. East Journal (in Hungarian). Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
  The article notes:
  
  In un’altra epoca, un altro prodigio: a 4 anni colleziona lucchetti e manette, a 13 già si esibisce con un numero tutto suo. Record mondiale di apnea con 21 minuti e 29 secondi (2009), lui è David Merlini, di professione escapologo. Siamo a Budapest, lato Buda, nel quartiere del castello, dove poche ore fa Merlini ha aperto il museo “The House of Houdini”. Noi di East Journal lo visitiamo accompagnati dal David in persona e non possiamo fare a meno di raccontarvi anche la sua, di storie, quella dell’uomo che si è fatto imprigionare in un blocco di ghiaccio per uscirne dopo 33 ore, davanti a mezza Budapest riunita per lui nel Piazzale degli Eroi.
  Nato a Budapest nel 1978 da padre toscano, David Merlini ha vissuto a lungo in Italia, a Torino, prima di tornare in Ungheria per debuttare con i suoi spettacoli, che oggi lo portano in tutto il mondo. Nel 2007 è stato premiato come “Best Escape Artist” agli World Magic Awards di Los Angeles, gli Oscar della magia. Due anni fa, durante la produzione americana “Houdini”, girata a Budapest, ha insegnato all’attore Adrien Brody (anche lui ungherese, di origine) a trattenere il respiro e ad evadere dalle manette, lavorando come consulente per la miniserie premio Oscar. Nel 2015 è stato protagonista di uno show in memoria di Houdini per la chiusura di Expo 2015, a Milano.
  From Google Translate:
  In another era, another prodigy: 4 years collects padlocks and handcuffs, to 13 already performs with a number of her own. World record of apnea with 21 minutes and 29 seconds (2009), he is David Merlini, the escapologo profession. We are in Budapest, on the Buda side, in the castle district, where a few hours ago Merlini opened the "The House of Houdini" museum . We at East Journal visit it accompanied by David in person and we can not help but tell her also, the stories, the man who became imprisoned in a block of ice to get out after 33 hours, in front of half-Budapest gathered for him in Heroes' Square.
  Born in Budapest in 1978 by Tuscan father, David Merlini has long lived in Italy, in Turin, before returning to Hungary to debut with its shows, which now carry him around the world. In 2007 he was honored as "Best Escape Artist" at the World Magic Awards in Los Angeles, the Oscars of magic. Two years ago, during the American production "Houdini" , filmed in Budapest, he taught actor Adrien Brody (who was also Hungarian, source) to hold your breath and escape from handcuffs, working as a consultant for the Oscar-winning miniseries. In 2015 was the protagonist of a show in memory of Houdini for the closing of Expo 2015 in Milan.
9. László, Szabó G. (2015-09-20). "Külföldre viszi mutatványait David Merlini" [David Merlini abroad takes mutatványait]. Új Szó (in Hungarian). Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Tíz éve nem látta a magyar közönség, tíz éve nem is nyilatkozott David Merlini, a világszerte ismert és elismert, édesanyja révén magyar szabadulóművész. Hivatását azóta sem adta fel, a világ különböző pontjain mutatja be lélegzetelállító produkcióit.
  From Google Translate:
  Ten years ago, the Hungarian public has not seen for ten years not commented David Merlini, a well-known and recognized by the Hungarian mother szabadulóművész. He has not given up his profession, shown around the world in a breathtaking performances.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow David Merlini to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources by Cunard need review Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I appreciate the diligence in seeking out sources, but I do not think they are more than routine notices or reviews about an unusual performer. I'd wait until he's covered by some standard work on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC) ,.[reply]

@DGG: Nom suggested draftify might be a good idea. Given that an editor clearly is willing to look for sources on this person, what about moving it to draftspace for now and then seeing whether he's notable after further article improvements and sourcing? Appable (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject already passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Do you disagree that David Merlini has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Why move it to draftspace when he's already notable? Cunard (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This 1,354-word article from The Budapest Sun and this 624-word article from Hetek are solely about David Merlini and contain detailed biographical coverage about him. They are not "routine notices or reviews about an unusual performer". According to a Greystone Books–published book, David Merlini in 2009 set a "world record for assisted breath-holding". That his world record was covered in a book strongly indicates it is not routine.
Cunard (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Companions of the Hall

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

This group of fictional characters do not have the sort of third-party reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. What references there are are not independent from the creator(s), are superficial or from unreliable sources. Additionally, the article is mostly an in-universe set of biographies, in violation of WP:WAF, and what can be written about the characters out-of-universe seems limited to listing the works in which they appear. Appropriate mention of the characters can be made in the articles about the works or their author, but this content is not needed for that. Sandstein 07:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a summary style parent of multiple notable fictional characters, which span many books and game components. This specific collection of characters is mentioned by this name in reviews [17], [18], [19]; interviews [20], [21]; and are one of the topics covered in an RPG-focused dissertation, [22]. Jclemens (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To specifically address the nomination statement, WP:WAF is a style guideline, not an inclusion guideline. If a style guideline is not adhered to, then the obvious implication is that the problem in question can be fixed through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens's sources. Meets WP:GNG per WP:NEXIST. AfD is not cleanup... I agree the article currently is non-encyclopedic, but the subject matter is, and there is salvageable text from which to work into a good article here, so WP:TNT is definitely unwarranted. Fieari (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above responses, and failing that a merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters would make more sense than outright deletion. BOZ (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens's sources. Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 12 September 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. This is not an endorsement of the present state of the article, which is basically an extended plot summary. I recommend folks to trim the article down in accordance with WP:WAF, but that recommendation is not a part of this close. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms)

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

This fictional character does not have the sort of third-party reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. What references there are are not independent from the creator(s), are superficial or from unreliable sources. Additionally, the article is mostly an in-universe biography, in violation of WP:WAF, and what can be written about the character out-of-universe seems limited to listing the works in which he appears. Compare also the previous AfD of 9 years ago, in which the article was deleted even under the lax inclusion standards Wikipedia had at the time. Sandstein 07:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: There's a possible merge target, Companions of the Hall, but I advise against merging as that article, also apparently recreated, has similar defects and I'm also nominating it for deletion. Sandstein 07:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Companions of the Hall was only ever deleted by WP:PROD, never AfD, where it was kept resoundingly in 2007. Jclemens (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Let's try a different set of find sources... Jclemens (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This fictional character shows up in multiple RS contexts, including online game reviews [23], [24], board game reviews [25], [26], as well as an in-depth review that covers this character's story arc specifically [27]; interviews with the author [28], [29] as well as interviews with the "World Building Lead" for Wizards, Chris Perkins [30], and is apparently mentioned in one RS book that's not covered in preview [31], as well as an RPG-focused dissertation [32]. This character was apparently voiced by David Duchovny in an audiobook [33], as well. While many of these are single-word mentions, the otherwise-trivial-seeming mention of a character name in a product review indicates that the reviewer expects his or her audience to be familiar with the character. Jclemens (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To specifically address the nomination statement, WP:WAF is a style guideline, not an inclusion guideline. If a style guideline is not adhered to, then the obvious implication is that the problem in question can be fixed through regular editing. A nine-year-old AfD discussion is an interesting piece of history, but completely superseded by the more recent RS'ing that I've highlighted above. Jclemens (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a plot summary, which is basically the point of WP:WAF. As Jclemens rightfully points out, the majority of his sources are singular mentions in the context of plot, so they're useless. The one PDF that goes into an in-depth comparison of Wulfgar and another character's in-game statistics maybe could have a use somewhere. The sources in the article do not actually cite anything relevant, so they're all fluff designed to give the illusion of notability. As in the other AfD, I would expect this character to be able to establish notability, but that alone is no reason to think it should be kept. There needs to be actual proof of that. TTN (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that just like Sandstein, by citing WP:WAF, you are tacitly admitting that, given appropriate stylistic cleanup, there's enough here with which to write an article. Reliable sources aren't "designed to give the illusion of notability", they exist out in the real world and are quoted by editors in AfD discussions when 1) the article didn't already include them, and 2) the nominator didn't find them in a hypothetical WP:BEFORE search. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see that the primary thing I quoted was NOTPLOT. WAF is a means of making sure NOT is followed, so it is not just a stylistic guideline. All fictional topics are fundamentally all plot and only by meeting the standards of WAF can they gain the real world info needed in order to meet the policy. When the sources you bring up are trivial mentions, they are definitely meant to act as if the topic is actually notable. This is a common trend in these kind of AfDs where someone drops a load of links as a means of saying that the topic is notable, but they are never actually added to the article because they are utterly useless in the context of the article no matter how good the source. The same goes for many of the sources already in the article. They cite primary details and basic details, but they don't actually have any real content related to the character. TTN (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be easy to admire your tenacity and consistency, TTN, if you weren't simply so completely wrong about the notability of fictional elements. The reason people like me don't spend more time improving the encyclopedic coverage of fictional elements is that we have to constantly spend time protecting it from people like you who make well-meaning but misguided efforts to intentionally damage the encyclopedia's fictional elements coverage using its own processes. Jclemens (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, notability is how Wikipedia currently defines notability as per its guidelines and policies. There is no guideline, policy, or user consensus that suggests fictional elements are some kind of protected class of article that gets to skip all that. The quality of all sources is to be non-trivial coverage, but the grand majority of the sources you provide in pretty much all these AfDs are just that. Critical commentary is the discussion of the character or plot element in some way. You provide mostly trivial mentions and straight plot regurgitation that have no bearing on notability, while the occasional decent source is buried somewhere in there. This is just one of the unfortunate things of AfDs where one person says it's notable, everyone piles on to that without actually looking at the sources, the article is never improved, and then merged/redirected/deleted years later.

Keep per Jclemens, and as to me the "Telegram & Gazette" source added by Paul Erik and the Chicago Sun-Times source added by Torchiest are clear indicators of notability, regardless of the current state of the article. If consensus winds up disagreeing with me, a merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters would make more sense than outright deletion. BOZ (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the comments from Jclemens, and Necrothesp. I believe the sources point support the subject's notability. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wulfgar has been the subject of various reviews and interviews as pointed out by Jclemens. That its been mentioned this many times, in independent third party sources is more than enough to show that Wulfgar is not only notable within Forgotton Realms but is notable unto itself. This appears to be just a case where coverage in reliable sources wasn't lacking, only that the page itself didn't have any reliable sources. Sometimes that can be easily fixed through regular editing. I am not convinced by any arguments to delete this article. —Mythdon 14:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it obviously won't change the outcome of the Afd, it is extremely disingenuous to say that the character has coverage in sources. Only one of those sources goes into any detail about the character, while all the rest are just brief mentions under the context of the character's status as a main character in Drizzt series. Those minor mentions are mostly interchangeable with any of the five main characters and provide literally no context where they could be added to the article. TTN (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- While singular mentions by themselves aren't great for providing context to the character unto themselves, sources don't always have to, as a whole, cover the subject of the article to establish notability. And there are already in depth sources which do cover the character specifically. Its as much the number of different sources and the extent to which this character is covered, although on varying spectrums, which demonstrates it has been talked about in the real world in third party sources completely independent of the subject. And while the singular mentions are interchangeable with the other main characters which are covered, that still shows Wulfgar has been the subject of independent sources. Fictional subjects are very different when it comes to sourcing, since these are not science, politics, current events or law, etc, you have to work with what you have. It has do with how you use these sources. Even if it just means making a mention in the article about how the character has been subject to reviews and whatnot, that's enough for establishing notability that doesn't involve writing an article that consists entirely of plot summary. —Mythdon 08:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please show which sources actually cover the character. Other than the one I pointed out up above, there is not one good source that I've seen inside this AfD or inside the current state of the article. The standard for all sources is "non-trivial." Singular name-drops are absolutely trivial. There is no lessening of standards because fictional topics lack sources. It just means they are not notable. TTN (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect instead because, yes, although there are may be sources about this, and that could be enough to accept this, there has still been noticeable consensus at AfD suggesting characters are not automatically confirmed and accepted for an article simply because it's a character; there still needs to be the substance of its own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather curious argument. Of course characters aren't automagically notable--that's why there's an AfD and a lot of people opining keep pretty much demonstrate a consensus to, in fact, keep. You admit there are sources, but then seem to walk back that admission. Merging is obviously within the realm of normal editing options, and AfD doesn't foreclose that, so I'm a bit perplexed as to why you chimed in with it here, given your statement on sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ and Jclemens, above.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... and here's one more source [34], a where the character is mentioned as a central element from a 2001 bestseller entry for one of the novels. I can't see the fulltext of this, however--does anyone have Highbeam login and able to provide it in context? Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 24 September 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 01:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Cozell Montgomery

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, with no other claims in the article that would lead me to think that they meet any of the other notability criteria such as WP:BASIC. VQuakr (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches do not turn up significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources to pass the WP:GNG hurdle. Nor do his accomplishments satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also unable to turn up any measure of notability for the individual for the level of notability we require here. Try another wiki??--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page is of accuracy and should not be deleted. Montpac (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy is not the issue. In order to have a stand-alone article, there needs to be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. So far, there is no evidence of any such coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also redirect to 1991 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team . BlackAmerican (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:34, 15 September 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 01:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herb David

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

Brought to COIN for COI issues, as the article was written by the subject. After copyedit, no real assertion of notability that isn't inherited. Sources either are not independent, or are local news only and minimal. MSJapan (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands I can't even see the local source. Needs more RSes to stay - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Possibly notable, but this article was written by its subject (see history) and is highly promotional. There is also a possible copyvio issue (see talk page). So it would have to be heavily cut back if kept. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Slight rewording, otherwise copyvio from https://web.archive.org/web/20090601014415/http://www.herbdavidguitarstudio.com/catalog/about_us.php https://web.archive.org/web/20081012075924/http://www.herbdavidguitarstudio.com/catalog/about_herb.php Fruitmince (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable music businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 14 September 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 01:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sager Notebook Computers

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

Promotional article with no indication of notability. James500 de-prodded it because Google Books hits supposedly establish notability; he never pointed out any specific books, and all I can find there are passing mentions and business directories. Huon (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands no RSes actually about the company - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Searched and couldn't find any sources providing significant coverage of this company. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:57, 12 September 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 and redirect as there's consensus there's nothing confidently keeping this as its own article, including with the needed improvements, therefore, whatever is needed to merge if at all is available at the history logs; there have been no other comments suggesting otherwise (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Game-based marketing

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

Topic is not independently notable from Advertising in video games, In-game advertising, and gamification—doesn't cover any area that isn't already in the scope of those three articles czar 15:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar,

Please note the differnce between the terms 'advertising' and 'marketing'. Advertising stands for promotion and Marketing stands includes everything including 'promotion, selling etc.,'. That is the main point of difference which is not noted in In-game advertising and Advertising in video games. Let me know if you have any issues... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsnarendran14, the question is whether the scope is significantly different. Based on the current sourcing, they're not. So either the existing article's scope should be expanded to all forms of marketing or the existing article—even if it just has "advertising" in its title—just subsumes the content within the new article anyway. czar 16:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, those articles are mentioning purchase which is wrong! Purchase should never be mentioned in those articles..instead those articles should mention more about promotions. You can go through this book http://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470562234.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That book's contents fit into the scope of existing articles (the three mentioned in the nomination). "Game-based marketing", per the title of this book, is a neologism—our other articles already cover its topics. czar 18:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, there is no term called 'game-based marketing' in those articles. Those articles might mislead the readers.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Czar, Could you please give a update on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also working on adding additional content, but I need few more days to include those contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This term is widely used nowadays in marketing and it will helpful for readers if they find it in wiki. In future experts can add in more content to this article, considering this is only a start. It is not neologism by the author. This term should have been included in wikipedia very long time back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the term is important, you can redirect it to where it is covered in an existing article. The issue I raised is that this scope overlaps with several other articles without having sources that establish it as a separate topic. Either one of the existing titles should change to "game-based marketing" or this concept should be included within an existing article. czar 20:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then the term in-game advertising should come under game-based marketing, since in-game 'advertising' is a sub topic of game-based marketing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a valid article. This article is not covered anywhere else in wiki. In-game advertising is different from that game-based marketing and we should not redirect it to anywhere else... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SudiptaDhar (talk • contribs) 10:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - In as much as there exists any difference between "marketing" and "advertising" can be discussed in a single article. I suspect In-game advertising will be suitable. Remove the overlap, discuss the differences in the right place. Consolidate. Only split off into a sub article if there is too much information in a section, which I do not believe will be an issue. But regardless, there's no need to delete anything here. Fieari (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will do it. I will add some differences and merge these two articles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I'll support a merge here, but mostly wanted to point out that Tsnarendran14 and SudiptaDhar have been identified as sock puppets by a CU. Waggie (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to In-game advertising; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 18 September 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 01:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Alba

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

Non-notable actor. Only claim to notability is being the brother of Jessica Alba. Notability is not inherited. Natg 19 (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sibblings of actors who have appeared in a few bit parts are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 11 September 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K M Reedy Reserve

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

irrelevant local sports ground. Fails WP:GNG. In use by a association football club at the sixth level of the Australian football pyramid. Clear case of COI (see name author) The Banner talk 19:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no inherent notability in local sports grounds. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOFEAT quite conclusively, non-notable football ground. Fenix down (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm withholding my !vote pending outcome of the AfD on the club itself. If that is kept, this should be redirected there as a plausible search term. If not, it should be deleted. Smartyllama (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regardless of whether the club is notable or not, this clearly fails WP:GNG Spiderone 11:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linne Freminot

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

Freminot is a non-notable beauty pageant winner. She is notable for one event, and that is not enough to justify having an article on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~UNDECIDED~~Delete Edit: Fails GNG. So, this is a clear delete if going by significant coverage standard (in that there is no significant coverage). But why wouldn't the spirit of WP:NSPORT apply here as well: Competitors at top competitions are notable. For example, Catalina Escobar is notable because she qualified for the Olympics and that's good enough for NSPORT. Similarly, if someone makes it into the draw at a Grand Slam in Tennis, they are notable (so Chrisophe Bernelle's fluke entry in the 1983 French would make him notable). Why wouldn't such a standard as competing in top level apply to this case also? The low bar in NSPORTS makes me uncertain about whether a low bar should be set here also. Thoughts welcomed. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG; the subject is mentioned in Miss World 2015 and this is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 14 September 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Hampton Park United Sparrows Season

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

Year article for a club at the sixth level of the Australian football pyramid. No need for a separate article. Clear COI (see name main author). The Banner talk 19:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not in any way pass WP:NSEASONS, an amateur club in a not-fully-professional league. --SuperJew (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this club does not play in a pro competition so it can't qualify for a season article Spiderone 16:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS by a mile. No indication of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:49, 13 September 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 01:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karlie Simon

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

Contested PROD: "Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nontrivial biographical content. As described at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Moore (2nd nomination), the UKAFTA fails PORNBIO requirements."

I further add that the article should be deleted per WP:PROMO and WP:DIRECTORY; the article does not provide meaningful biographical content and only exists to promote Ms Simon's business. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP as an article about a living person without any references to reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. This is Paul (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails pornbio & gng. –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO - the lack of content and dearth of intellectually independent sources indicates this article is meant to be platform for promotion. Also, fails GNG, and does not come near to meeting the stringent BLP requirements. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's analysis and per the argument of my original PROD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess everything is said. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Miller

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Main source is a book by his daughter, Josephine. 1st AfD closed as no consensus as it attracted no responses. Boleyn (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is a dab page. @Boleyn: did you mean to AfD a different page? PamD 08:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw really sorry, not sure what I've done here but this isn't the page I meant to nominate, PamD and Chanheigeorge. Sorry to have wasted your time. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 11 September 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 01:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar Brok

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

Article on a subject notable for one event: his untimely death. I located coverage both in English and Estonian, but it was all about the same event. A reach out to Wikiproject Estonia did not produce a response. I thus recommend deleting this article per WP:BIO1E. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:1EVENT. Meatsgains (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - a sad event but nothing of sustained notability. Kierzek (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only way he'd possibly be notable if he was the first Estonian serviceman killed in Afghanistan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see this from either English or Estonian sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Cabral (economist)

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

Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to me a clear pass of WP:Prof. A named prof/chair and good citations (GS scores). Noted work on Boeing-Airbus dispute. (Msrasnw (talk))
Snow keep. Named chair (WP:PROF#C3), highly cited (#C1), editor of two major journals (#C8), author of a widely used textbook (#C4)... it actually might be quicker to list the criteria he doesn't meet. @Meatsgains: Please remember to check articles against applicable SNGs as well as the GNG before nominating. Joe Roe (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Much

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

In keeping with the guideline at WP:NOTTVGUIDE, this whole article has nothing to offer to the reader in terms of notable information about the Nine Network. Instead, the list is routine scheduling, devoid of importance, and almost entirely unreferenced. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has nothing to do with scheduling, but covers the series broadcast by this network in general, without specifying the dates or times those programs were shown. Such articles are common; see Category:Lists of television series by network. While the existence of such articles doesn't prove that they deserve to be kept, it does suggest that there is some interest in them. (Also, the reason for deletion was copied from a different AfD; this article is about Much, not Nine Network.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE precludes us from being this week's TV listings; it does not preclude a basic list of all the shows a television channel has aired, which is something that at least 378 other TV channels have per Category:Lists of television series by network. There may be a case to be made that such lists should actually be deleted from Wikipedia, but this argument isn't it, because NOTTVGUIDE was never meant to preclude this kind of thing and there's no good reason to single Much (or Nine) out as uniquely non-notable when 300+ other equivalent lists are still standing. Keep, unless somebody can come up with a better reason for deletion than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Star Channel

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

In keeping with the guideline at WP:NOTTVGUIDE, this whole article has nothing to offer to the reader in terms of notable information about the Nine Network. Instead, the list is routine scheduling, devoid of importance, and almost entirely unreferenced. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has nothing to do with scheduling, but covers the series broadcast by this network in general, without specifying the dates or times those programs were shown. Such articles are common; see Category:Lists of television series by network. While the existence of such articles doesn't prove that they deserve to be kept, it does suggest that there is some interest in them. (Also, the reason for deletion was copied from a different AfD; this article is about Star Channel, not Nine Network.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE precludes us from being this week's TV listings; it does not preclude a basic list of all the shows a television channel has aired, which is something that at least 378 other TV channels have per Category:Lists of television series by network. There may be a case to be made that such lists should actually be deleted from Wikipedia, but this argument isn't it, because NOTTVGUIDE was never meant to preclude this kind of thing and there's no good reason to single this one out as uniquely non-notable when 300+ other equivalent lists are still standing. Keep, unless somebody can come up with a better reason for deletion than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearcat (talk • contribs) 2016-09-17T02:03:18 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Nine Network

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

In keeping with the guideline at WP:NOTTVGUIDE, this whole article has nothing to offer to the reader in terms of notable information about the Nine Network. Instead, the list is routine scheduling, devoid of importance, and almost entirely unreferenced. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has nothing to do with scheduling, but covers the series broadcast by this network in general, without specifying the dates or times those programs were shown. Such articles are common; see Category:Lists of television series by network. While the existence of such articles doesn't prove that they deserve to be kept, it does suggest that there is some interest in them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per above. Chase (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE precludes us from being this week's TV listings; it does not preclude a basic list of all the shows a television channel has aired, which is something that at least 378 other TV channels have per Category:Lists of television series by network. There may be a case to be made that such lists should actually be deleted from Wikipedia, but this argument isn't it, because NOTTVGUIDE was never meant to preclude this kind of thing and there's no good reason to single Nine out as uniquely non-notable when 300+ other equivalent lists are still standing. Keep, unless somebody can come up with a better reason for deletion than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 17 September 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thibault Corbaz

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

This was deleted as a PROD but was contested and restored. Per this Corbaz has played all his senior games in the Swiss Challenge League which, according to WP:FPL is not a fully professional league. Corbaz's sole appearance in Switzerland's national cup, the Schweizer Pokal, was against FC Winterthur in the 2015–2016 season. FC Winterthur was playing in the Swiss Challenge League that season. Corbaz has not played a game for the senior Switzerland national team. All this shows that Corbaz does not meet WP:NFOOTY. This google search shows there is not enough in-depth, reliable sourcing focusing on Corbaz to mean he meets WP:GNG. – Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Profile season 2016/17 on the Swiss Football League homepage surely meets WP:GNG (significant coverage in reliable sources). I do not understand why the Swiss Challenge League is not included in the list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football, all the clubs are professional. Is it just because a few teams (FC Chiasso, FC Le Mont, FC Wohlen) often field semi-pro players (???) If a club makes a loss it has it's licence revoked (example FC Biel-Bienne January 2016). It is difficult enough trying to write on swiss football, without having well writen artikels being suggested for deletion. Okay, the english press do ignore swiss football, even the fact that FC Basel became champions last season was ignored by the entire press. It would be great if editors would help improve swiss coverage, please don't delete, this makes everything even more difficult. Greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly regarding the source you linked to. That is what we call a routine source which means it doesn't help the person pass WP:GNG. The page, although it is about him, doesn't discus him or analyse him as Footballer. It is just a list of stats which any player in the Swiss leagues would have. Secondly, by a fully professional league, we mean that all the clubs are professional, i.e. all their players don't have a second job, the players get paid a wage that is sustainable etc.. Thirdly, per WP:HARDWORK, just because you (or others) have put time into the article, and it is greatly appreciated, it doesn't mean we should keep the article. if the subject has no notability then it should be deleted because if everything had an article Wikipedia would become less of an encyclopaedia and more of a social network. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – At the time this article was created, the Swiss Challenge League was, and had been for several years, listed at WP:FPL as fully professional. It was removed from the FPL list, not because it was proven to be non-fully pro, but because the epfl-europeanleagues.com source used didn't guarantee fully professional status. (Still better than the crappy "source" that proves the Swiss Super League fully pro, but that's by the by.) I'm not sure how good an idea it is to start deleting articles that were created in compliance with the notability criteria as they stood at the time. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see what your getting at but I don't see why what the old notability standard was matters now. Just because we would of kept the article two years ago doesn't mean we should now. Also see WP:LONGTIME. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why not... I've expanded it a bit, with reference to mostly routine sources but two or three significant ones: refs #3 and #27, and to some extent #23 are more than routine, although #3 is a local paper. I'd have done a fair bit better with him had the Swiss papers not all been hidden behind paywalls; it's frustrating when you get lots of promising-looking search results and they're all subscription only :-) If it isn't kept, at least there'll be a half decent base for someone to work from when Mr Corbaz does have his 15 minutes of fame in a fully pro league. And I do advise someone to try and find a credible source for the Swiss Super League being fully pro. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur with the claims here that the article is still not actually exhibiting how and where he's independently notable; the fact his career information is not exhibiting this, shows there's nothing convincing therefore. SwisterTwister talk 02:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough credible and notable sources to pass WP:GNG as Struway2 has previously noted. --Jimbo^[online] 13:46, 20 September 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 01:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Ka Fai

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

Does not have enough wins or time racing to seem notable per the sports notability guidelines per WP:ATHLETE Wasabi,the,one (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No references and doesn't estable how the subject is notable in enough content and by reliable sources per above. Chase (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, it's not common someone fails WP:ATHLETE. When it happens, well... fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable racecar driver.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 15 September 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 01:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herald of KNUTE

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Only indexed in Copernicus, so likely negligible impact on the field. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but this is WP:TOOSOON. I expect it to be indexed in some more selective databases (with a proven track record of not indexing predatory journals). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:29, 16 September 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 01:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Yu

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

A sportsperson named Sean Yu comes in news search. This person doesn't meet WP:BASIC right now. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is a resume in prose form - David Gerard (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That last edit just made it worse, and it didn't really add anything of value. Formatting problems (such as the boldface, extra large, italicized lead), we can deal with. Advertising and promotion, not so much. Somewhat unrelated, but I've also found out that the picture used in this article, which is from Commons, is a copyright violation. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article appears to consist mostly of copy-pasted text per Copyvio report [35] -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 23:14, 13 September 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 01:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First (band)

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

fails to meet criteria for WP:BAND Marvellous Spider-Man 01:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references and per above. Non-notable, non-reliable sources/external links by unrelated party/third party. Chase (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks references and any independent, third party evidence of notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:14, 12 September 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 Shampoo. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conditioning shampoo

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

Wikipedia is not hair advice, should been redirected to Shampoo. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 01:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shampoo which mentions products contains conditioner (though most mentions are for animals, go figure) so is a plausible search term. I'd say Speedy Redirect if that was a thing. Perhaps this topic warrants an article but the one presenting here ain't it. Crow^Caw 01:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shampoo. This is not a neutral encyclopedia article, but rather an unreferenced personal essay attacking a product category. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shampoo per above. Chase (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 11 September 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 01:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bigen One Push

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

Unremarkable product lacking coverage in reliable sources. The article's only reference is an unreliable Wordpress link. PROD was removed by article creator. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. I think in this advertisement. Bigen One Push is unknown. Caneoffire (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable every-day product, which fails WP:GNG. Even the manufacturer, Hoyu, has no Wikipedia article. --DAJF (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before someone suggests redirect, affliate of Howa is written with kanji (豊友) and manufacturer of product with katakana (ホーユー) (Possible idea for Japan taskforce to create company article?) Fruitmince (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly speedily as the author has requested deletion above... I can't see anything much in Google, except for quite a bit of publicity stuff. Peridon (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP. Whether is Bigen with katakana or not meet WP:GNG perspectively. 203.111.224.32 (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bigen is product, Hoyu is company that manufactures it. (There are two Japanese companies named Hoyu, one being affliate of Howa. Manufacturer of _this_ product isn't even listed in Japanese stock market.) Fruitmince (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I want to know that Bigen should be redirect. Sorry. Caneoffire (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: The Howa article is about a machinery company, totally unrelated to this hair care product, so redirecting is not a valid option here. Also, you should refrain from removing deletion discussion tags before the discussion has been concluded. --DAJF (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Arkansas USA. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Sherrill

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

Basically we know that Sherrill was Miss Arkansas USA (not enough to be notable) and that she was in a soroity that has had other members become Miss Arkansas USA, which is extreme trivia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss Arkansas USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Arkansas USA per North America1000. Chase (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- my searches do not turn up anything that does not originate from the pageant sources. A redirect is unneeded as the name is too common and is unlikely to have turned into a valid search term, given the absence of independent sources. If the closer's decision is to redirect, suggest doing so after "Delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect name to Miss Arkansas USA; otherwise, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: User Kierzek nailed it. Otr500 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Ullah Khan

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

BLP tagged since 2015 for multiple issues. The source-bombing consists of fleeting mentions on sites or articles that are not about Ehsan Ullah Khan, dead links, and non RS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article cites a number of sources of questionable reliablity or relevance, but it also cites a substantial newspaper article in DAWN [36] and a book by Junius P. Rodriguez [37] both arms-length reliable sources containing in-depth coverage of Ehsan Ullah Khan. To those one could add another book, by Craig Kielburger [38], that is also an independent reliable source containing significant coverage. So meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom and Worldbruce's excellent research. Agree that subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. ArchieOof (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article does a well job of establishing WP:Notability, has multiple sources, and a clear subject. Chase (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the subject is clearly notable per available sources. Citing within the article could be better, but I see this page as a candidate for improvement, not deletion. Slavery in the Modern World is a good source and should be added to the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 17 September 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 01:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Solea

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines, WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources used are Soundcloud, IMDB etc. The one press article is essentially a bare mention with no biographic content, essentially only mentioning a couple movies he was in. Jbh ^Talk 11:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing to show real notability; local trivia story in New Orleans area. Kierzek (talk) 01:55, 11 September 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 01:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthieu Tondeur

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines, WP:NARTIST and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources relate to VJing rather than the subject. I can find no substantive material on the person. Jbh ^Talk 14:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that we are missing Mandarin-language coverage based on his name, but I don't know how it would be so transcribed, and I've no way to search for it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a Gsearch result for him in "Simplified Chinese." People can look through it if they like. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:39, 11 September 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 01:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Willan Rivera

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

Fails WP:BIO. Most sources I could find contain only trivial mentions. Adam9007 (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N. The references don't even mention him, or only in passing, not establishing any notability. If anything, he's coattailing on the success of others. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:38, 11 September 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 01:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazala Salam

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 16:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 10:42, 11 September 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 01:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Law Asia

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. References are passing mentions, one blog and quotes from the founder. There does not seem to be any third party commentary about the organization. Jbh ^Talk 19:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just another law firm here. Nothing shows that it is notable - they have not received any significant independent coverage to fulfil WP:CORPDEPTH. For comparison, we do have notable law firms in Singapore (such as Rajah & Tann Asia) and they usually receive a lot of coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 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 01:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Football (NRL)

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

Not notable as an article on its own, lack of references -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I went through quite a few google pages, and found only trivial mentions in reputable sources: [39], [40]. Yvarta (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't establish that it is notable and has a lack of references. Could be merged to another article. Chase (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechnoTalk (talk • contribs) 06:50, 18 September 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 01:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash-class submarine

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

The article lacks reliable sources verify the claims and only depend on a forum post and has close resembles previously AFD deleted Arihant follow-on submarine after this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arihant follow-on submarine Nicky mathew (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only a few speculations about this class of submarine (The codename of this project is SSBN S-5 per this source) exits. I couldn't find a reference in reliable source(s) about the project being named Avinash-class. I think this can wait for better sources to be available. Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arihant follow-on submarine—UY Scuti ^Talk 16:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:33, 11 September 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.