Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 February	8 February >

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. Kurykh (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jiansheng Chen

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

Declined A7 speedy delete and prod because there is a local news story, just like all shooting deaths will have. Don't see how that is a claim to significance. There is no claim to notability for a person who was shot sitting in their minivan. - GB fan 23:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There is no evidence of broader significance for this local incident. AusLondonder (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also Shooting of Jiansheng Chen and associated AFD. - GB fan 02:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request to keep the page as this was not an usual shooting case: the victim was inside his own car in his own neighborhood and was shot to death by the community security guard. The case bears similarity to the shooting death of Trayvon Martin and is getting increasing attention from the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlowSuperMom (talk • contribs) 03:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is like that at all. Trayvon Martin elicited months of coverage and raised all sorts of debate in the media in regards to racial and societal issues. This situation is sad and unfortunate, but you can't possibly make make that sort of comparison yet. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It does not matter whether or not an article subject is "usual", only whether or not it is notable. "getting increasing attention from the society" sounds a lot like WP:ATA#CRYSTAL; if this person is going to become notable later on, we can easily wait to have an article on him until then. For now, an article subject does not meet notability requirements just for being involved in a single isolated event, even if that event were notable.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. If we must document this somewhere, perhaps in an "Impact/effects of Pokemon Go section/article", but it doesn't require its own article, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I saw this on social media and it certainly is vexing to say the least. No opinion on the notability of the shooting but the biography of the victim, which is the topic at hand here, is not appropriate. A person whose death is the only source of widespread coverage on him is not notable per WP:BLP1E. His death may be notable, unfortunately his life is not. John from Idegon (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:MEMORIAL. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the article about the shooting should be kept as it is getting national coverage outside of the local news media, but there is nothing about which we can write a biography separate from the one event. --B (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the other page "Shooting of Jiansheng Chen". Thanks to another editor's help, I have plenty evidence of significant local coverage (the Virginian Pilot), national coverage (NBC, CBS [1][2]) and international coverage ([3][4][5][6][7][8][9]). This strongly suggests that the content deserves to be kept in one way or another. The victim was Chinese and spoke almost no English. That added more complexity to the seemingly odd killing by certain security force and is bringing more attention from national and international coverage. SlowSuperMom (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*Struck duplicate keep !vote. You already asked to keep this article in this discussion. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck other user's striking of a "keep", since to the casual observer it otherwise looks as though the only "keep" argument here has been rescinded by the user making it. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally I'd say "Merge" per WP:ONEEVENT but the content in this article is already in the obvious merger target, so there's no point. Exemplo347 (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Per Exemplo347. The more appropriate article is the event article. As the two articles are essentially identical, there's nothing to merge. A redirect to the event would also work. -- ferret (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my reason here. TheDeviantPro (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ONEEVENT seems to apply here. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as textbook WP:BLP1E. Laurdecl ^talk 06:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Marie Freeman

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

Sparsely source biography of a living person written by a single-purpose account. bender235 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's some coverage of the "local person makes it" type of coverage in the Hastings Observer, but I am unable to find significant coverage about her beyond that. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yedha Lee

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

Not notable person. Known for one time event only. There are no any evidence he's a well known activist. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, probably WP:NPOV. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothea von Velen

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

Hoax. Only one source is cited - a book that contains neither the words "Dorothea" nor "Velen". Her name does appear in any books, nor does she appear anywhere in the German Wikipedia (which is odd, for a supposedly influential German figure). Creator has not edited Wikipedia since 2014. French and Swedish versions are just translations of the English and include no extra info or references. Smurrayinchester 08:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD "Find sources" button found this article from 2016 which mentions her in passing, but which - according to the original manuscript - copied that information from Wikipedia (see footnote 22). This is just an example of WP:CITOGENESIS. She does not appear anywhere in JSTOR, which is v odd for a historical figure. Smurrayinchester 08:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I cannot find sources to corroborate any details in the article. In particular, there are plenty of reasons (mostly political) Johann Wilhelm issued the Religionsdeklaration of 1705 that have nothing to do with a mistress; while Montesquieu wrote about coverture, I don't find any intersection between Montesquieu and von Velen; I don't find any Otto Alexander as bailiff or amtmann of Seltz; I don't see anything about Charless III Philip expelling a mistress of his brother from the palace; and I don't find any mention of her memoirs or of a book with that title or a likely German, French, or Dutch translation of it, and I don't see any association of either elector with seances or the occult. I would like to AGF regarding the source in the article, and not having the book and not being sure about it I only !vote weak delete, but it looks to me like the source may have to do with Montesquieu and not with von Velen. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claims in this article call for strong sources and specific sources and none are given.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Montanabw^(talk) 11:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax unless more reliable sources are provided. I am suspicious of the book cited as the German for Charles is not Carlos (Spanish). If genuine, I would expect someone would have found further sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously hoax.no evidence.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find an ounce of notability anywhere. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Blue

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT there is only one reliable secondary source "allafrica" the others are either primary sources or blogs. the tags were placed in the beginning of November and nothing has been done to improve the article's sources and prove notability. Domdeparis (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Allafrica is a news aggregator website and even then the subject doesn't have even a tinge of coverage in reliable sources to show notability. Kansiime (chat) 00:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The subject is a well known radio disc jockey in his native country. From what I could gathered from the sources cited below, the subject owns a radio station and helped set up the Liberian Music Awards. I was able to find local coverage of him in The Daily Observer and The Bush Chicken. He also received a mention in this BBC piece about Ebola. The Liberian Journal also mentioned him in this 2016 article. Moreover, he has received coverage for reportedly ordering a radio show off air, as well as putting together a video mix to promote local artists in Liberia. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 45 hits in NewsBank (no false hits, but 5 are duplicates). Regular coverage in Liberian Observer (as noted by Versace1608) both for music and a few political interventions (Henry Costa controversy and Takun J candidacy). Featured on NPR's All Things Considered (starts at 2:00 minutes). Identified as famous and a key mover in the music scene in Liberia. I'd love a good bio as much as anyone else, but the regular coverage and significant mentions make this a good case for Keep. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creed Warner

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, although the number of false hits for the Warner Bros. film "Creed" may have been getting in the way. Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of the fun film that was Creed, I could not find any reliable sources that satisfy WP:RS, and therefore the biography fails WP:NBIO. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 19:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albie Tedham

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. He gets passing mentions here and there, a tribute and a trophy named after him, but that's about it. The article's creator is Stuart Tedham, and this is his sole edit. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farda Khudaverdiyev

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

I'm not sure what's notable about this person. —S Marshall T/C 20:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... sigh. You have to actually SEARCH for the subject of the page before you nominate for deletion. Hello. There are about 10 million news articles about this guy, with his name clearly in the headline, most referring to him as "well-known actor." [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak the language, so I can't evaluate the sources. Will you tell me that you do and those are good, reliable, independent sources that are a suitable basis for a biography? I'll happily withdraw this AfD if you will.—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazarian family

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

PROD removed by IP without explanation. This article is unnecessary - only a single source (W Magazine) refers to the "family," but it discusses individual members. Notable family members already have their own pages, making this page redundant. I don't believe it meet the notability guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what is our usual policy on family articles? I want to be as inclusive as possible and I know we have a million articles on rich English families. The W article is pretty solid. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a specific guideline, beyond the usual WP:GNG. Since there's only one reliable source, I believe it would not meet the GNG. Any relevant info can be included on individual Nazarian's pages. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete questionable sourcing aside from W magazine. Details can be added on individual family members where appropriate as nominator suggests. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can see a role for the page to show the relationships between the various notable and semi-notable family members, but it really could use some fleshing out.PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation. This could also count as a WP:NOTESSAY deletion as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Batman v Superman and Umberto Eco

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

WP:NOTESSAY Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. This is just someone's personal essay on the movie, chalk full of OR. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like whomever wrote this has been plastering this essay on various different places in an attempt to promote this viewpoint. I found it posted here and here, dated February 7, so this would be a copyvio of these posts - assuming that this wasn't taken from somewhere else. In any case, this is a copyright violation at worst and at best it's just a personal essay that doesn't fit into Wikipedia, so I'll go ahead and close this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frogz 64 (Atari Jaguar)

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

No real third-party evidence of notability. Promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the source (which is a link to user forums), this looks like a hobbyist project. No listing at MobyGames, nevertheless reviews. czar 00:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Larson

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

Part of a self-confessed advertising campaign given the heavy contributions by company employees or people who are otherwise connected, it's only something a closely-involved person would show, and searches mirrored the trivial sources, so there's no other convincing substance for our non-negotiable policies; all sources offered are clear business announcements, mentions, quoted business words, etc. None of that counters our non-negotiable policies against advertising and merely stating "He's important" or "His business knows him" is not a convincing defense. See:

1 is his own website
2 is his own website again
3 is his own published words again
4 is company website
5 is his own website again
6 is same
That violates our simplest policies since it's all published and republished company information, and before anyone asks, this is all I found because (regardless of publication), they all actually maintain the same PR consistency. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG - Article doesn't establish notability. Article lacks independent reliable sources. Even the article creator acknowledged that the subject isn't notable beyond founding the freeCodeCamp.com website. "Articles for deletion/ FreeCodeCamp". Notability is not inherited .Previous PROD removed by WP:SPA with no reason given. Google searches turn up nothing to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 04:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Disclosure: I'm the author of this article, and also a student of freeCodeCamp, hence connected. I created this article with best intentions, but I was uncertain if the subject meets the notability criteria right from the start. The most relevant information has already been copied into the freeCodeCamp article. I don't consider it a loss of any relevant information if this article is deleted. Googling Quincy Larson podcast shows Larson has attracted some media interest from specialized tech podcasts in the recent past, but I don't think that this is enough to establish encyclopedic relevance. --Jan Schreiber (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 12 February - Note to Closer: If this article is deleted, it could be made a redirect to freeCodeCamp, as suggested by MusikAnimal in the AfD discussion about freeCodeCamp. "Articles for deletion/ FreeCodeCamp". --Jan Schreiber (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage of this individual in reliable, independent publications. I see the organisation he founded has survived AfD, and any useful content in this article can be merged there. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO that fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lakcs evidence of the depth of sourcing needed Courcelles (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xat

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

Online chat website and app of little to no notability. No evidence of any significant coverage of this app in any reliable media. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Among the previous-AfDs box, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xat.com had consensus delete for the website that is the current article's topic. The other three are for unrelated things called "Xat" or variations, not this current article's topic. DMacks (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DMacks: The previous AFDs list is autogenerated as part of the Twinkle AFD process. I've overridden the automatic list with the specific list of the one topic related to this one. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! DMacks (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi, this website has been mentioned in a book, has thousands of videos on it made by its users, and it's own Spanish wikipedia article. Please reconsider. Thanks. --Tanner708 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The mention in the book begins "My buddies in England run a website called XAT..."^[1] The text goes on to use XAT as an example of one method of using perceived scarcity to build demand. This is not an independent source (the author knows the founders of XAT personally), so it does not constitute an independent source. An even if we allow for the fact that Kawasaki might be using the term "buddies" liberally, the example cited hardly confers notability to the website. The quantity of videos available, and even the presence of an article on another Wikipedia, do no indicate clear notability. (Other Wikipedias have their own processes and guidelines for assessing notability.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kawasaki, Guy (2011). Enchantment: The Art of Changing Hearts, Minds, and Actions. Penguin. ISBN 9781101475997.

A couple more here, here, here, here, here, and here. Don't think they'll change anything, however. --Tanner708 (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Tanner708: The Microsoft reference is the most promising of the bunch, but even that amounts to little more than "look at this cool thing someone made with our software." The rest of the citations you've added here are mentions in passing about Xat's image optimizer app, which they don't even appear to host any longer. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's some mentions but lacks the signficant coverage that would hoist this over the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ServersCheck

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

A7/G11 was contested. This article is about a run-of-the-mill software company that has been deleted in the past under the A7 and G11 criteria, and was recreated two days after that. While the language has been cleaned up a bit, overall the page still serves primarily to promote the topic, and the coverage received is mostly PR pieces or tech websites noting that the software is now freeware. Google News search turns up a grand total of seven hits, one of which being pure PR, and the others not meeting the assessment standard of WP:ORG when applied to WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (note: I declined the CSD) I couldn't find any non-PR sources, and the self-help book cited mentions the product with two sentences in a list. Almost all potential sources appear to be trivial mentions of the software product rather than the company. Appable (talk | contributions) 22:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising alone with the confirmed signs from the history. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mari National Rebirth Party "Ushem"

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

Small political party, unrepresented in any legislature; no evidence of notability. XXN, 15:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Three weeks. Treat like a PROD. Courcelles (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plava revija

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

A minor, non-notable magazine. From the available sources, it is known more or less only that it existed - far below WP:GNG threshold. GregorB (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L.J.D. College

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

There is no text in this article, just bare lists and a couple of sentence fragments. None of it is supported by any sources at all. There is no context as to why this place should be considered notable enough for inclusion or how it meets notability guidelines. A search in Google News found no references to it at all. It is also worth noting that the username of the editor who wrote the article is identical to the claimed Chairman of this college (though he removed the COI tag). The same article with a slight variation of the name ("LJD College") was previously Speedy Deleted.

 | Gronk Oz (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. Poor article, but clearly exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That consensus (as outlined in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education) is that "most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept..." (my emphasis). It is not a guarantee that every article about such institutions are always kept; there is room for discussion. There is no indication that this institution is "independently accredited". IMhO, even if it was accredited this article is below the standard of what is worth keeping: it is nothing more than a promotional listing written by the person who runs it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs cleanup if it is notable. Unsure if it is notable, but willing to give it a chance if it can be cleaned up. South Nashua (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The same editor has since created two other articles with the same content, LJD College, Falta and LJD College,Falta South 24 Parganas. Both have been marked for speedy deletion. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page as it seems to be a real thing. I deleted the other reproductions. Perhaps L.J.D. College-Falta could be a redirect as it seems to be an official name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evgenia Tsarkova

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

Does not meet notability criteria, probably. XXN, 14:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable bowler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rinat Galeyev

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

Non-notable. XXN, 14:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Head of Russia's sixth-largest oil company for ten years. Died in 2007, so not a BLP. Edwardx (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Looks notable, but needs more references.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Pitt

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per (lots) of WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY with no major individual awards and not playing in a high enough league for very long (11 games total in the AHL or similar level, everything else is lower). Yosemiter (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly below standard. I went through his Mercyhurst career, and he meets none of the criteria needed. Third Team All-Star doesn't cut it though. He looked like he may have been a near miss, but definitely below WP:NHOCKEY. Bill McKenna (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another of the many hundreds of non-qualifying articles foisted upon us by Dolovis, for which he was (eventually but not nearly soon enough) community banned from new article creation. This was one of his stocks-in-trade, the claiming in defiance of consensus that a minor honor qualified one under NHOCKEY, which it never has had. The subject is a journeyman in the mid-minors, and it's good that he still has work in the semi-pro British leagues, but he's never qualified under NHOCKEY and there's no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 18:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Schwede 66 18:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Mason-Smith

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL as he has only played in semi-professional leagues. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Exactly; fails WP:NFOOTY, part of a creation of articles by Football.napier. Just blp prod it; no need for a AfD. J 947 04:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails WP:NFOOTY. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)}
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.Non-notable WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Schwede 66 18:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kohei Matsumoto

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL as he has only played in semi-professional leagues. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Exactly; fails WP:NFOOTY, part of a creation of articles by Football.napier. Just blp prod it; no need for a AfD. J 947 04:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails WP:NFOOTY. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)}
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Schwede 66 18:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Liddicoat

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL as he has only played in semi-professional and junior leagues. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Exactly; fails WP:NFOOTY, part of a creation of articles by Football.napier. Just blp prod it; no need for a AfD. J 947 04:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails WP:NFOOTY. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)}
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Adamtt9 (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Schwede 66 18:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay Milne

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL as he has only played in semi-professional leagues. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Exactly; fails WP:NFOOTY, part of a creation of articles by Football.napier. Just blp prod it; no need for a AfD. J 947 04:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails WP:NFOOTY. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)}
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.non-notable WP:NFOOTBALL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Nothing else needs to be said. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Schwede 66 18:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hill (goalkeeper)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL as he has only played in semi-professional leagues. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Exactly; fails WP:NFOOTY, part of a creation of articles by Football.napier. Just blp prod it; no need for a AfD. J 947 04:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails WP:NFOOTY. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)}
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY and isn't otherwise notable. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linux.org.ru

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

Original research. ALmost unreferenced article about a subject which probably fails to meet notability criteria. On ru.wiki article was deleted in 2015 per ru:ВП:К удалению/29 сентября 2015#Linux.org.ru. XXN, 11:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Goodfellow

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

No sources, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up no evidence that a Robert Goodfellow plays for Rangers F.C. Furthermore, the timeline indicates that he would've signed a contract at age 16, which seems unlikely, and the quote seems made up as well. That combined with the picture in the infobox make it likely that this is either a hoax page or a mild attack page. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to qualify as a speedy hoax. I can find no evidence that he is or ever has been on the Rangers' under 20 squad or their under 17 squad (neither of which would be sufficient to pass WP:NFOOTY), let alone the Rangers' main squad. Meters (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Smith (cinematographer)

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

Fails WP:BIO. Article says known for his work with Stanley Kubrick, etc, but offers not evidence via verifiable sources. Article has magically appeared when his film comes out. IMDB records him as cinematographer on Eyes Wide Shut, but working in camera department on many other. Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't help his case per WP:CREATIVE that despite the high-profile director(s) he's worked with as a DOP, he has won no major award. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep. I stumbled on this pink-link from The Man Who Knew Infinity (film), and added a bit of references (including for his work with Kubrick, noted above as unreferenced). Not sure if that's enough to push it over the line into Keep territory, so I'll go with "mild keep". I'm a little annoyed that the article appears to have been created by the subject himself; although I guess that's not really a reason to delete. TJRC (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EasyHSM

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

Current article is a borderline G11, from massive graphics to talking up how it makes something "expensive" into something "economical", it reads like a sales brochure. If that was fixable that would be one thing, but I can't find any good third-party references with which to fix it. What I can find on it is either from the parent company or is press release or name dropping type stuff. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely just a sales brochure. No attempt to provide evidenc eof notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and promotional. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too soon. W Nowicki (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Seeger (broadcast technologist)

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

Non-notable person. No significant independent sources regarding this individual. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable media tech figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Awan

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

No significant coverage in secondary sources. Subject seems to fail GNG -- Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTABLE and WP: GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by عثمان خلیل (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note the off site WP:CANVASSING going on here [15]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTABLE. I've clicked on all the links for the references. The first one was blocked by my firewall software, the others all seem to be unreliable tertiary sources. I learned about this on Quora where the subject is canvasing for support (see above). Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nom.Fails WP: GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think this page fails WP: GNG. I've clicked on all the links for the references. All are working and giving relevant and notable information. I also searched on google with "usman awan activist" keyword and related information is available on internet. Sidramanzoor (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC) — Sidramanzoor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you please share these WP:RS sources? Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, the two references from ProPakistani and TheNewsTribe both are most authentic and these are top rated news sites in Pakistan. Some guys saying that resources are not relevant, then what we can do is to edit this article according to the content of the reference articles. When I am supporting to keep this article is that the information is not fake, it's authentic and real. If problem is that wiki article is not relevant to the reference articles, then let's edit it. Isn't it?Sidramanzoor (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone said it was 'fake' or a hoax. It is a question of notability. If you think those refs pass WP:RS then take that up at WP:RSN, I'd be willing to bet a great deal of something that they don't. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, This man is from Pakistan and his article is published on the most reliable Pakistani sites. I have checked 3 of the sites which are mention in references, all based on reliable sources. Just visit those sites and see the content. I think these references are enough for a local activist. For me this article pass the WP: GNG and WP: NOTABLE. That's why I am taking much interest.Sidramanzoor (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - I think the article satisfy the WP: GNG and WP: NOTABLE and I checked all the reference links. All of them are relevant and authentic. AlissaKStahl (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)— AlissaKStahl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local form of the work theorem

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

Obscure new theorem being promoted by its developer. Not notable per WP:NOTABLE. Only linked within WP from another obscure theorem by the same editor and mathematician. Lithopsian (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (delete both if the nominator wants to add Generalized-strain mesh-free formulation) as WP:NEOLOGISM/WP:OR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Too soon WP:Not a text book. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Promotional (which always seems odd in a scientific context, but applies nonetheless), WP:Too soon -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - synthesis of recently published work. Bearian (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails.Promotional article.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lendingkart Group

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

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable business; significant RS coverage cannot be found. What comes up is PR driven and nothing in Google books. The article is weakly sourced to articles discussing funding and partnerships, suggesting that it's WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising alone with equally clear advertising sources containing all so consistent PR, history shows mirrored signs of it. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel S. Severson

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

Not yet notable lawyer. Editor of one of Harvard Law Schools important journals, but that is by its nature a single-year position. Nothing else that's possibly notable DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. As discussed before, short-term editorships do not qualify for WP:Prof#C8. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as unconvincing and nothing significant yet. SwisterTwister talk 02:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially DGG and Xxanthippe. I was a managing editor of a law journal, which by itself is run of the mill. He fails my standards for lawyers, as of now. These notes are not meant to be an insult - he appears to have a promising and lucrative career ahead of him - it's just way too soon for a Wikipedia article. Bearian (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is on track to become a notable lawyer, but he has not made it there yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails.non notable lawyer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priscila Sol (pornographic film actress)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Priscila Sol (pornographic film actress) (2nd nomination)

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Claimed award is a token trade show honorific, given out only once it in the award's two-decade history. It's also odd to see a Brazilian performer winning an award for best French starlet, and casts further doubt on the award's significance. In any event, a niche award like this is insufficient to demonstrate notability in the absence of independent, reliably sourced content. Negligible independent RS content. No RS biographical content. No nontrivial GBooks hits; Substantive GNews hits appear to relate to a different performer of the same name. 2008 AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscila Sol. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AVN nominations count for notability. Snood1205 (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to reread pornbio, nominations count for nothing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete unsourced blp. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the nominations do not count. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTE: I have recently edited the article under consideration here. The subject here has "won a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Venus Award for "Best New Starlet Female - France", which is very similar to the AVN Award for Best New Starlet & the XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet. The Venus Awards "are unique" in the adult film industry "in that directors, performers, and films from the same country (Germany, France, the United States, etc.) compete for honors with other entities from that same country", and winners from or related to France have won awards many times at the Venus Awards in the past. Guy1890 (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete~~Delete~~ Came here from WP Brazil. Did some research. Read other pornbio AfDs. Read WP:Pornbio. The crux of this debate seems to be exactly whether the Venus Award counts as a "significant industry award". I would not say so from it's wikipedia page at Venus Award. I'm using wikipedia as the source for whether it is significant, and just comparing it to the article on AVN award it falls far short of "significance". I think this amount of research should be enough to determine my vote.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 15:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update:changed to weak delete, I had been a bit bothered I mean the AVN awards are supposedly "the oscars of porn" and have 100,000 visitors, while Venus awards have no such parallel (can you imagine "the Cannes of porn"?) but still have a sizeable crowd of 40,000. The crowd for the festival is additionally IMO not really relevant to the notability/significance of the award. The AVN is significant as the main award in porn, but I am not sure to what extent the Venus Award is or is not significant. I think either way the article is on the threshold, barely notable or not notable.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hasn't won any significant awards, no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Kerns

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

This is a candidate for political office without significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. Does not meet WP:NPOL, the notability guidelines for politicians. Whpq (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he has not held any significant offices per WP:NPOL. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and no other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An as yet unelected candidate in a future election does not get a Wikipedia article just for the fact of being a candidate, in and of itself — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he already got over a Wikipedia inclusion criterion for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to attain notability from the election itself. No prejudice against recreation in November 2018 if he wins, but this article neither states nor sources anything that gets him an article today. Also there's a direct conflict of interest here, as the creator's Wikipedia username corresponds directly to the first initial and surname of a person whose Twitter account identifies him as an intern in Kerns' campaign office. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First off, what is the hurt of having Dale Kerns' Wikipedia page live? As far as I see it, you're limiting some voters choices because many use Wikipedia as a reliable voice. However, deleting a growing party's candidate does nothing but continue a broken two-party U.S. electoral system. You're putting blinders over the eyes of Pennsylvanians all over the commonwealth. I have no respect for anyone who thinks a candidate donating real time, effort and money into a campaign isn't "notable" enough. If this page is deleted by you folks, it'll show just how free our speech and press truly is in the 21st century. All voices should be heard. Also, I may intern under Mr. Kerns but in no way made this biography biased. It merely presents facts, which subsequently are being considered for deletion with no good reasoning backing it up. JCinello (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JCinello - Wikipedia is not a free webhost or blog. Nor is Wikipedia a soapbox for political causes It's not our obligation to help you end what you see as a "broken two-party system". The free speech argument is ridiculous and a strawman. Take a look at WP:FREE which states "in the United States you have the right to speak your mind (with certain narrow exclusions) on a street corner, at a town council meeting, or in a letter to your elected representatives. But you have no "right" to express yourself at will in someone else's home, to demand that a private newspaper publish your thoughts, or to insist that Wikipedia carry what you write—even if it's "the truth". I'm sure we'll cope with your lack of respect for us and out quality control measures. Please see WP:NPOL and WP:GNG for the policies that demonstrate clearly why Kerns is not notable. Finally, writing about something with which you have a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged. AusLondonder (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, Wikipedia is not "the press", and having an article on here has nothing to do with "free speech" or the lack thereof. Our inclusion criteria are not governed by anyone's sense of personal entitlement, or by any sort of "equal time for all candidates in any election" rule — we're governed by the requirement that reliable source coverage verifies passage of a specific notability criterion which satisfies the will people still need this information ten years from now test. All of which mean that people get articles on here by holding office, not just by running for it. And having or not having a Wikipedia article does not affect a candidate's chances of winning or losing the election, either — the number of new articles that we invariably have to create after an election takes place plainly demonstrates that having a Wikipedia article is not a precondition of winning an election, and furthermore many of those people who didn't already have an article before the election successfully defeated someone who did. People have a lot of sources of information from which to decide who to vote for in an election — their local newspaper, their local TV and radio stations, the candidate's own campaign website, attending live debates and campaign events, and on and so forth — and they most certainly do not depend exclusively or even primarily on Wikipedia for that purpose. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Kerns gets significant coverage during his election run, than we will have an article. At present we lack such, he does not pass notability. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, it is an encyclopedia built on reliable secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kerns is a candidate running for a high elected office and Wikipedia offers some of the only known information about. User:Mrhalohunter24 —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Candidate running for a high elected office" is not a reason why somebody gets a Wikipedia article, in and of itself — we keep articles about holders of political office, not candidates for it. And if we offer "some of the only known information about him", then that's doubly a reason why we can't keep an article — our job here is to follow the media coverage, not to lead it. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasoning. Individual is completely non-notable. ALPolitico (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:NPOL says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" but it does not say "an unelected candidate for political office does not automatically mean no notability." In this instance, he has made important contributions to the race which mean the entry should be kept, at least until the race is over. What I find especially troubling about the way many editors approach this is how it is biased to incumbents and largely undemocratic as a result. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way have these important contributions been documented in independent reliable sources to establish notability? --Whpq (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we delete this? Because we're concerned that it might be perceived as "campaign literature"? Bangabandhu (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You ask why we would delete this. It's stated right in the deletion nomination. "Does not meet WP:NPOL". It has nothing to do with concerns about it being perceived as campaign literature. As for the articles you prvoded, the first article is about Pat Sellers. Kerns is mentioned as a volunteer. The second article is about 3rd party candidates as a concept, and quotes Kerns but is not about Kerns. The third article simply mentions he is planning to run. None of that supports notability in the Wikipedia sense. -- Whpq (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the thread and saw the reference to WP:NPOL. I don't think its enough to reference that document, but editors should have to explain exactly why an entry doesn't meet those criteria. I've provided a sample of cites. They're far from exhaustive, but they show that the subject of the entry is frequently called on as a community leader and important third-party politician. We could do a more thorough search and I'm sure we'd find more. But a hasty deletion prevents the addition of those sources. Sure, the article could be resurrected, but that is far from likely. Those cites exist and could be added, which is what we should be doing rather than pushing for deletion. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to WP:NPOL, it's not a complicated notability guideline. Unless you're claiming he's been previously elected, then it's all about the required significant press coverage which is missing. The three articles you pointed out above are not significant coverage and he is the primary topic of exactly zero of those three articles. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Patrick Butler

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

Was speedied, but that was declined, although the rationale on the talk page doesn't really satisfy not speedily deleting it. No indication of notability. Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth sourcing from reliable, independent sources needed to show they pass WP:GNG, and they clearly don't pass either WP:NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While he may reach the criteria in the future, currently Butler does not meet WP:NACTOR having not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows and stage performances. His acting roles seem largely limited to San Diego although he did star in the 2016 film South of 8. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blind faith (computer programming)

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

Unreferenced article that fails WP:GNG — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a neologism that did not gain widespread use. Looking around for sources, I'm only finding mirrors of this wikipedia article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. W Nowicki (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a jargon list. W Nowicki (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've never heard the phrase in this context. A Google search comes up with nothing but this, a link with computer experts actually discussing this same article, and reaching the same conclusion. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6079392 Timtempleton (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MINP Records

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

The page creator has created multiple non-notable musical articles and templates which suggest conflict of interest. This article with a different spelling was speedily deleted as per his talk page. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- all indications are that the user is a SPA focused on promoting the company (see for example User talk:Jagatrajbahak). No notability for the subject shown either. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CAST Application Intelligence Platform

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

No references that indicate notability CatcherStorm ^talk 17:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources I could locate seem to be churnalism. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Company might be notable (though article needs to be less promotional). But this thing they sell is not. W Nowicki (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BlueOptima

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

References do not indicate notability CatcherStorm ^talk 17:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company/product, sourced to their own site and presentation pack. Nothing on Highbeam, and I'm seeing nothing beyond the usual listings via Google. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH considered as a company and WP:GNG as a product. AllyD (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Checked for further sources that would establish notability, but didn't come up with anything usable. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Forth and Clyde Canal. (non-admin closure) Laurdecl ^talk 09:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forth and Clyde Canal Society

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Prisencolin removed notability and refimprove tags with no edit summary and has not responded to my request to start a conversation about it on article's talk page. Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Articles on enthusiast-based organisations can be problematic: a passion and dedication for the few but lacking notice by the wider community. In this case, however, I think there is enough in terms of coverage of ongoing visitor operations on the canal (as can be seen in various pieces of coverage, albeit local, under a Highbeam search), but more in terms of the earlier campaigning for reopening (which also led to creation of one of Scotland's leading tourist attractions: the Falkirk Wheel) to demonstrate a lasting impact which makes this reasonable for an encyclopaedia entry. (An alternative might be a merger of the article content into Forth_and_Clyde_Canal#Run_down_and_revival, which should at minimum be extended to mention the Society anyway.) AllyD (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Merge to Forth and Clyde Canal. Mais oui! (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Merge to Forth and Clyde Canal. Tourists should be able to see this information.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Forth and Clyde Canal for now, but no prejudice against a full article, if someone wants to write it. Sourcing should be possible, see below list. Why is this taken to AFD? WP:ATD-M is policy, and Forth and Clyde Canal Society is a perfectly normal categorized {{R to related topic}}. — Sam Sailor 02:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thomas J. Dowds (1 January 2003). The Forth and Clyde Canal: A History. Dundurn. pp. 84–. ISBN 978-1-86232-232-5. The formation of the Forth and Clyde Canal Society in 1980 marked a turning point. Now there was a group of enthusiasts prepared to devote time to advancing the cause of restoration. It worked alongside the British Waterways Board and ...
C. Philip Wheater (31 January 2002). Urban Habitats. Routledge. pp. 167–. ISBN 978-1-134-71572-5.
Len Paterson (14 November 2012). From Sea to Sea: A History of the Scottish Lowland and Highland Canals. Neil Wilson Publishing. pp. 178–. ISBN 978-1-906000-34-9. The Forth and Clyde Canal Society put an excursion vessel, the Ferry Queen, into operation in 1982. (The name was the combination of adeference to the turnofthe century excursionfleet and to thefactthat the craft was a converted river Clyde ...
A. Ian Bowman (1984). Swifts & Queens: Passenger Transport on the Forth & Clyde Canal. Strathkelvin District Libraries & Museums. pp. 73–. ISBN 978-0-904966-11-4. In the 1970s the Scottish Inland Waterways Association, and in 1980 the Forth and Clyde Canal Society were formed by canal lovers. Supported by British Waterways Board, Strathclyde Regional Council and Caledonian Estates they set to ...
Miriam R. McDonald (1996). A guide to Scottish industrial heritage. Scottish Industrial Heritage Society. pp. 13–. ISBN 978-0-9528555-0-7.
ROSC. John Donald Publishers, and National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland. 2005. pp. 131–. A Forth and Clyde Canal Society was founded in 1980, enthusiasts helped to clean it up in sections, and the selection of Glasgow as the European City of Culture in the same year as the 200th anniversary of the opening of the canal helped to ...

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 again by G7 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oswaldo González

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

|Successful, but I couldn't establish that he definitely meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. I wasn't going to nominate it for deletion at this stage, but WP:SPA creator keeps removing notability tag without giving any reasons. Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Venezuelan composer. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiography (declared as such to me by email, and indirectly on my talk page) of non-notable person. PamD 23:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paul Whelan (rugby player)

The result was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender Hill High School

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

Article about a school without any claims to notability (other than existing) nor any sources to pass WP:GNG. TM 16:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:SKCRIT #2 - "The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption" part b. "nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption, e.g. when a contestant in an edit war nominates an opponent's userpage solely for harassment". The nominator nominated this article, on a secondary school which meets WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, immediately after I nominated Theresa El-Amin, which they created, for deletion. Ms El-Amin is a non-notable person and the creator has cited an advertising flier and a self-authored personal directory entry with contact details as reliable sources demonstrating notability per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. The nom also queried my motives, writing "I'm not sure why the article of a prominent civil rights activist is being nominated for deletion during Black History Month" and then proceeding to nominate this article on an overwhelmingly black secondary school for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious keep as existing is the commonly accepted notability standard for high schools. Gab4gab (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and the nom should withdraw this revenge nomination. Lepricavark (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - per criteria 2 as mentioned above. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danovich, Svetlana

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

Biography of a surgeon who does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG - it was originally written like an advert for the person and her clinic, and now that the promotional content has mostly been removed, what remains is basically a CV. bonadea contributions talk 15:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Igorkorovchenko (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)I'm from Voronezh city. The main idea of my new project to find and describe famous person, achievements of whom is significant for our city. The second criteria is to write about person who alive now. I have started from our Voronezh Medicine Academy. I'm newbie on Wikipedia and can be wrong in some aspects. All conditions I was passed. I'm independent investigator who interests history of our city. Can you help me to done the best articles for Wikipedia? I will be appreciate.... I'm in need of your assistance to have my wikipedia page verified by an editor other myself. Apparently, my page is up for deletion unless verified properly. Could you please help me out? I would truly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorkorovchenko (talk • contribs) 20:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete The article has no claim of importance so I would have deleted this with an A7 reason if so nominated. There looks to be no newspaper stories, no independent web coverage, and her writings are only limited and not enough to pass as an academic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Igorkorovchenko (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Unfortunately, I am not a journalist, who know how to write professional articles. I'm PhD but in radiophysics. For our city it is a successful person. A career of this doctor is phenomenal. We should have a list of famous person as an example for our new generations, isn't it? What I should do that my article becomes like newspaper story. About her scientific results I can't judge.[reply]

@Igorkorovchenko: None of us is a professional journalist, and that is definitely not what Wikipedia is looking for. The problem is not with the writing style as such; the article was written like an advert at first, but that can always be edited and remedied. However, the underlying issue is that there is no sign that this is a person who meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. She has made a career for herself as a surgeon, but thousands and thousands of people have done that - it does not in itself make her notable. Please have a look at this information - that's what is required. Wikipedia is not a place to make people better know, it is a place where people (and other topics) who have already been noted in independent sources are written about, based on what these other sources have said. What Wikipedia is not may also be helpful. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: Can you describe main distinguishes between, for example, this page or this page and my article? And why my article is advertisement? In my opinion these pages are candidates for advertisement as well. Am I wrong? I can investigate more facts about awards and titles of Svetlana Danovich. Will be this article more wikipediest after that? Can you teach me? I think that it is not only her achievements, these achievements are aim for graduates from any universities or institutes of our city as minimal. But students don't know about this person. I'm a assistant professor. I know that after good example students wants to grow up into professional experience of them. Can you disagree with me? She is one of significant person for us. We are living in the city with more then 1 million's population.Igorkorovchenko (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the article is not nominated for deletion because it looks like an advertisement; that content has (mostly) been edited out already. It is nominated for deletion because the text and references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's policies concerning notability. The other two articles you mention are not relevant to this discussion, because each article needs to meet the notability criteria on its own merits. The specific criteria that need to be met are presented here and here. If she has in fact received notable awards, and you can find reliable sources for that, it might help towards showing notability. On a more personal note, I'm also an assistant professor (although in a different field) and understand your concern for your students. However, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia; again, Wikipedia is not a medium to promote people we think should be better known, if they are not already discussed in reliable sources. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 16:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sooraj Sukumar Nair

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

Non notable producer. None of his movies are notable, and neither is he. All the references mentioned are blogs. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 15:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor and producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London Assembly election, 2020

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. The elections are not for another four years and as such there is no information for it presently. It may be better re-establishing the article closer to the date. Also nominating:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 15:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 15:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have pages for the upcoming election in the United States, Scotland, Wales which all are not until 2020 and we do have some information as to who might run46.33.136.216 (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--TM 01:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, the nominator has failed to notify the two good faith creators of these articles - myself and @Ebonelm:. WP:CRYSTALBALL states that "examples of appropriate topics include the United States presidential election, 2020". See the following previous AFDs:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Irish general election (2016, Keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Serbian parliamentary election (2014, Withdrawn)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Barbadian general election (2012, Speedy Keep)

AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep We have articles for numerous future elections at all levels (supranational, national, regional, local). No need to single this out for special attention. Number 5 7 17:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. United States presidential election, 2020 is a poor comparator. With all due respect to the big city of Greater London and its 8-million population, its mayor is a more lowly character than the executive President of a nation of 324 million people which also happens to be the planet's only remaining superpower. As a result, London's mayoral elections attract rather less forward-planning and advance coverage than the multi-billion-dollar race to occupy a reworked version of Leinster House.
We do tend to keep nearly all next-foo-election articles, but I'm not sure that this one yet serves much purpose. It will probably gain some meaningful content by late 2018, but it doesn't matter much whether it exists for the next 18 months as a one-line stub. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Keep: per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, which clearly states that: "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election". In the case of the articles being proposed for deleition the dates of these elections are established in law, are the 'next' election in both cases (its not like this is an article for an election 2060), which is a common and accepted practice across Wikipedia. Not sure the nominator really understands what this deletion procedure is for as they had to be reminded to notify the article creators (one of which is me) and even their one line rationale has factual errors as the elections are taking place in three years time not four. Ebonelm (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not a requirement in WP:AFD to notify article creators. Bondegezou (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As per User:BrownHairedGirl, it doesn't make a huge difference if these are deleted now and recreated later, or left. The Mayoral article does actually have some content, so merits being kept. The Assembly article says nothing, but it's not causing any harm existing! Bondegezou (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' as articles for future elections can inform interested voters. Earthscent (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa El-Amin

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

Fails the criteria at WP:BASIC - "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject". Also fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (creator). I'm not sure why the article of a prominent civil rights activist is being nominated for deletion during Black History Month, but there are an abundance of sources for this article. Beyond those specifically cited in the article, her personal papers, containing over 22,000 documents, are being held for documentation at prestigious Duke University. She is recognized over and over again for her contributions to the Civil Rights movement and over her more than 50 years of activism. It is a stub and needs to be expanded, not deleted.--TM 15:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly appreciate the invaluable contribution of notable black people, particularly civil rights activists, whatever the month. I am involved in projects relating to systemic bias such as South Africa, India, and of course, the WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I don't like your inference. Your first source allegedly recognising Ms El-Amin is a promotional flier advertising an upcoming event held at the Central Piedmont Community College. The second source appears to be a self-authored directory listing of some sort with Ms El-Amin's contact details. Do you seriously believe those are acceptable sources, irrespective of the month? AusLondonder (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both links show that she is recognized as a notable contributor to the Civil Rights movement. The second link in particular is run by Historically Black College Tougaloo College for "Civil Rights Movement Veterans". The combination of her personal papers being stored at Duke University, her more than half century of civil rights and labor activism and her position as a co-chair of a nationally organized political party should be enough to establish notability, especially when one considers Wikipedia's stark systemic bias.--TM 15:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They show nothing of the sort. A piece of advertising for an upcoming event or a self-authored directory listing are not credible sources. This, however, shows hypocrisy. Revenge-nominating for deletion an overwhelmingly black secondary school in South Africa, a country suffering from systemic bias on Wikipedia, during *gasp* Black History Month, despite WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume good faith and discuss the prospects of this article, not whatever conspiracy you seem to find behind my editing. You still have not refuted how the 22,000 documents in El-Amin's personal papers kept at Duke University nor her term as chair of one of the largest political parties in the country do not contribute to her obvious notability. She is perpetually honored as a veteran and leader of the Civil Rights Movement even decades afterward.--TM 16:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources contribute to notability. You are yet to point us to any sources. Notability is not inherited from holding a position within a micro political party. If you have any evidence of honours which would show evidence of passing WP:ANYBIO please present it. In the meantime take a look at WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:NOTRS which make clear sources such as self-authored directory entries partially consisting of contact details and advertising material are not acceptable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of passing mentions, some photo captions, but I cannot find anything in-depth at all. One would think that such a person would have gotten a few profile pieces done, but none of the sources provide enough material to write more than a job history. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has had a long tenure in a public role in civil rights activism and continuously received passing mentions in news articles for decades. Per BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Also, significant collection of papers in the Duke Library system is a decision about the importance of the individual's work made by independent expert(s) and seems to confer some notability. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Duke University's archives include the Theresa El-Amin Papers, an indicator of historical significance. This article from Adrienne Harreveld of Duke's Research Network on Racial and Ethnic Inequality dedicates 18 pages to El-Amin's life and is a rich, detailed source that could be used to expand the article. El-Amin was also national co-chair of the Green Party. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 19:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of noteworthy activity. While no single event would qualify her on its own (which in itself would be problematic as it would trigger WP:ONEEVENT) the totality of experience more than satisfies WP:GNG. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strike Three and Underline

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article, which is both unsourceable enough and highly implausible as to what it describes, that I strongly suspect a WP:HOAX. Sample text: "With the revival of statutory interpretation brought about by the jurisprudence of Antonin Scalia, groups such as The Heritage Foundation and the ACLU wanted to teach children about the basics of legislation in a fun way." Leaving aside the vanishingly low likelihood of the Heritage Foundation and the ACLU collaborating on anything, these lessons were apparently taught by a boy and a green pipe cleaner -- and the show was eventually cancelled because "with the Internet increasingly playing a role in legislation editing, methods of legislation editing became too diverse to ensure most children watching had easy access to put into practice what the show presented," because apparently children are actually directly involved in the legislative process or something. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if somebody can properly source that this ever really existed, but as things stand right now I'm detecting a rather strong aroma of bullshit. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as almost-definite WP:HOAX. Not even a bare mention of such a show can be found outside the article itself (and the usual mirrors that surface). Layzner (Talk) 17:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a blatant hoax. Nothing found with a Google search and no sources. Obvious hoax. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it's not a hoax, it certainly isn't notable. Lepricavark (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune Teezeh

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

Prod was removed but no reason given. Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO and I could not find any reliable sources to show notability. Acidskater (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL8, fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, and does not yet meet any additional criteria for musicians. — Sam Sailor 02:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Muhammad Hanafi Saifi Mubarak

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

Non-notable Muslim teacher/preacher. Sources appear to be self-published or of low reliability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting notability guidelines. Also may be a self-promotional element here. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Moving to RFD Primefac (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upper-atmosphere impact

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

One of a bazillion links that Fmadd is inserting into Wikipedia with little necessity. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking around I find many places talk about upper atmosphere asteroid impact/ airburst. Isn't it nice how wikipedia can find highlight/find relationships between things beyond the original article? With bigger articles, isn't it nice to have a more direct contextual link? Don't links increase wikipedias value as a resource, giving the text more context (e.g. value as a tool for training AI, whatever). List_of_meteor_air_bursts [[upper atmosphere airburst] upper atmosphere impact

Fmadd (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be at WP:RFD instead of WP:AFD? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close - yes it should. I have changed the target to the current subsection heading. Let it be considered at RfD if that is considered necessary: Noyster (talk), 13:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Reyes Lacsamana

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines. Okamialvis (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty pageant contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability established. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Raspado

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines. Okamialvis (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - While there are a few sources about him, it's only routine coverage, and given the event he will participate in hasn't happened yet, this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff van der Eems

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

Subject is lacking in notability; one of the two references is trivial in nature. Okamialvis (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the company shows nothing to suggest its CEO would be bestowed notability and what's here is a simple business listing. SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Holland 1981

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

Notability not established, only article relating to "Miss Holland". Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 11:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assessment of sources in the article:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://misshollandnow.com/miss-holland-1981/		value not understood	value not understood	✘ No
http://lempimissit.suntuubi.com/?cat=328	value not understood	Free website of indeterminable authorship	value not understood	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

—swpb^T 16:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Miss Holland 1981 is already listed in the Miss Nederland article. There is nothing to indicate notablity about this particular instance of this particular pageant, and certainly no reason to list the runners up. nerdgoonrant (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are unreliable and add nothing to the article's case for meeting WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. DrStrauss talk 22:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don Meeno

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

Promotion from a shill. Non notable individual. Article bombarded with dud sources, nothing good for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Nicole Ogden

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

Promotion for the non notable bit part actress. Lacks significant roles. Outside local puff she lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Says she is "best known" for roles in What Would You Do? and This House Has People in It. What Would You Do? sees her appear in 2 of many episodes (spanning 12 seasons) as "Girl Gamer" and "Pressured Teenager". This House Has People in It is a 12 minute short where she is "Subject 3". duffbeerforme (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rory was only cast last year in WWYD she did two episodes. One her Girl Gamer became a cult hit with almost 2 million views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1BldQmiV0M&t=59s

Rory appeared in Alan Resnick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Resnick and Ben Obrein's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_O%27Brien cult hit This House Has Peple In It which quickly got a million views and spawned hundreds of videos and reddit threads explaining the short which reairs often on Adult Swim. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS729US729&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=this+house+has+people+in+it+explained

She is a regular Red Carpet guest at the United Nations for different international events. http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/205455654?q&versionId=225523932 http://www.einnews.com/pr_news/316664984/actress-rory-nicole-ogden-asked-to-open-the-2016-global-education-first-initiative-opening-reception http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/rthjK1FPVzW/2016+Global+Education+First+Initiative+Opening/cOl0JX-5qv9/Rory+Ogden https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/photos/2016-global-education-first-initiative-20160310-013126-697.html

She has just been made an official celebrity spokesperson for the national Cause END IT MOVEMENT along with Bill Oberst Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Oberst_Jr. Peyton Manning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyton_Manning and Carrie Underwood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Underwood

She also in in production of the multi million dollar production of Impure which she stars in. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4009484/?ref_=nv_sr_2 Danaolita (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWYD, a single segment where she barely gets a word in.

This House, notability is not inherited from all that name dropping. Ogdens contribution to that one is lying down.

Red Carpet, press releases are not independent coverage. standing on a carpet does not make one notable.

End It, notability is not inherited from all that name dropping. having a job (unsourced) does not make one notable.

Impure, according to IMDB, not multi million, not even one million. regardless, while it MAY when it comes out make her notable but till then WP:CRYSTAL.

Can I ask, did you pay anyone to write this article for you? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - does not meet WP:NACTOR. Quite possibly it is just too soon for an article, but right now all I find is press releases and other primary sources, when what is required is significant coverage in multiple independent sources. --bonadea contributions talk 17:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The creator of this article, Riddhi1981, is confirmed by a checkuser to be a sockpuppet of OfficialPankajPatidar. MER-C 08:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amrut Deshmukh

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

Fails WP:GNG no independent coverage in reliable sources to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Amrut Deshmukh is a notable entity as he has tried to start up a mission for Youth to cultivate reading. He has been mentioned by Notable sites Rediff/ Bayside Journal for this initiative. Would be appreciated if his Wikipedia is accepted. As he is trying to initiate a noble cause Kindly let me know, what else notable events needs to be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riddhi1981 (talk • contribs)

@Riddhi1981: Wikipedia's notability standards have nothing to do with whether the subject is "trying to initiate a noble cause" or not. Coverage by Rediff may perhaps contribute to evidence of notability, but purely local coverage, as for example in the Bayside Journal, is very weak evidence. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

Delete lack of sufficient coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearcut advertising alone. SwisterTwister talk 21:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Srisuriya

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

Non notable director. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 06:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: TOOSOON for an an actor. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable the only sources I could find are self-published (such as the references provided in the article) or a mirror of the Wikipedia article. Clearly fails WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per author request. Hut 8.5 22:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M Sanjeeb Hossain

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

Still nothing for actual independent notability and substance given the information is not only what his own advertised listings would say, but they aren't significant in our standards and policies, since he himself is still only a student and merely publishing something in a known journal isn't an automatic factor; overall, there's simply nothing else convincing; the information is considerably consistent with named mentions, not something for actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: creating editor has now blanked the article with edit summary "Deleted contents of page. Please go ahead with deleting the page", but as several editors have spent time copyediting etc this article I think the AfD discussion should be allowed to close formally so that there's a record of the deletion. PamD 14:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Chapman (business executive)

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

fails WP:BIO . yes he founded ANX International and that's what the coverage relates to. oppose redirect as unlikely search term. created by a single purpose editor so possible self promotion. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An initial assessment of the sources in the article:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://anxintl.com/about-us/		value not understood	value not understood	✘ No
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-17/startup-touts-blockchain-exchange-that-s-as-simple-as-e-mail			Subject is only mentioned once; main subject of article is the company	✘ No
https://www.rt.com/shows/keiser-report/219935-episode-max-keiser/			? TBD	? Unknown
https://cointelegraph.com/news/anx-issues-worlds-first-bitcoin-debit-card			Article does not mention the subject at all	✘ No
https://issuu.com/fixglobal/docs/2014-q3	Written by the subject			✘ No
http://insidebitcoins.com/singapore/2015/speakers	? Possible conflict; published by a conference at which the subject was a speaker			? Unknown
http://fix-events.com/hongkong/Speakers.html	? Possible conflict; published by a conference at which the subject was a speaker		Subject is only presented in a list of speakers	✘ No
http://www.keynote2016.com/speaker/david-chapman/	? Possible conflict; published by a conference at which the subject was a speaker			? Unknown
http://www.blockfin.asia/	? Possible conflict; published by a conference at which the subject was a speaker			? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

—swpb^T 16:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wow excellent analysis! LibStar (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find anything to support notability. (I like the assessment template) Aoziwe (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To editor Aoziwe: Thanks! I'm hoping it catches on, so feel free to use it! —swpb^T 13:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising with clear advertised sources, there's never negotiating in any kind of PR regardless of what the publication said, influenced or put, because our policy WP:NOT is clear that anything close to advertised PR can and and will be deleted. SwisterTwister talk 02:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if the one source was indepdent, reliable and indepth enough, the requirement is multiple sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ANX (Hong Kong company). Non-notable. Google News hits are trivial mentions. Adam9007 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph DiBenedetto

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

Non-notable lawyer. All reliable sources are about his clients; all unreliable sources are self-created. No record of bar association involvement that I'm aware Calton | Talk 10:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 06:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Granny of the Dead

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

Does not meet WP:NFO. Cannot find any reviews, articles, awards, or anything other than download sites. Rogermx (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 06:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small independent horror film with minimal impact. I was able to find that it was shown as part of two[16] small[17] horror festivals with a total of one paragraph of description, but both festivals are themselves non-notable. Other sources are a passing mention in a local paper about one of the film's stars[18] and copies of the IMDB listing. There is apparently only one substantive review[19] in an independent source. Not enough to establish notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeus Moore

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

Two mentions in local press, one of which appears to be a paid press release on an "internet only" newspaper, close paraphrasing to sections of studio website's "about" section, almost speedied this but is close enough to line on WP:GNG and WP:PROMO second opinions are warranted. JamesG5 (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 06:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence passes WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. No WP:RS to establish notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Michael Weber Show

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

Fails WP:BAND. No notability whatsoever. scope_creep (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 06:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly unsourced stub of a WP:FACEBOOKBAND with no evidence of notability. Searches return nothing but non-WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Pavlychev

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

Fails WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE sources. Not yet meeting WP:NHOCKEY. Triggerbit (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 05:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unconvincing given the current career information. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A freshman university hockey player of no notability and no career accomplishments; fails the GNG and NHOCKEY going away. A baffling enough creation to warrant going over the creator's article list, truth be told. Ravenswing 16:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lilah Parsons

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

Reason :No sufficient Notability Ascar123 (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC) (Ascar123 (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 05:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S. Spencer Baker

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

I just cannot see this passing WP:Author or WP:GNG. Promotional page created by contributor with very little activity (31 edits, more than half on deleted content) with proven poor grasp of the concept of notability. This author or his books have had little coverage beyond WP:Routine and one reference is from a blog review, the other is goodreads. Rayman60 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 05:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of independent significant coverage. Does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suchitra Mohanlal

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

Notability is not inherited. She is notable only as the wife of Malayalam movie star Mohanlal and for the fact that her brother and father were also movie producers. Also the fact that she was the rubber stamp producer for two of Mohanlal's movies is also not enough to meet WP:GNG according to me. Justus Smart 05:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the career is not substantiating independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 (unambiguous copyright violation from http://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=human_rights) by Primefac. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Sensenig

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

Non-notable associate professor. reddogsix (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I say this simply due to the blurb feel of the article's text.TH1980 (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply unconvincing for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Few citations in GS WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deb Podowski

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

No independent references, only her resume and her studio. Google search turns up nothing third-party, just her own stuff. This article and Austin-Tuck Studios are a walled garden. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also failed to find what might be necessary to pass WP:GNG. Yvarta (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress. Guest starring in a TV show is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debra A. Brock

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This scientist seems very unlikely to satisfy any of the notability criteria (WP:NACADEMIC); I don't think being first author of a Nature paper is cutting the mustard by itself. - Feel free to prove me wrong; I'm feeling a little bad about this because the editor is clearly doing their best to produce an informative article about their work group leader, and in a proficient manner. They are also about to embark on a WikiEd programme, and having your stuff deleted before you even get going on the class project must suck. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the author and thus perhaps biased, I feel as though she has much more accomplishments that obviously in the span of two days of edits I have not been able to detail just yet. Her position as one of the main researchers in the Queller Strassmann Research Group puts her in a position where her research is at the forefront of the field. Just her thesis alone which describes the ability for Dictyostelium discoideum to farm bacteria is a huge discovery for symbiotic relationships. She has also been doing her research for multiple decades and so I think that her contribution to the study of the social amoeba along with the backing of the research group and the long list of her works give her enough standing as a notable scientist. - RV_Mather 28 January 11:19

It doesn't really work that way, though. A long list of publications is not sufficient in itself. If you have a look at the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC, what is needed is independent public acknowledgement of great influence in the field; this usually comes in the form of honours received, coverage of the person in articles and books, etc. It does not appear that these are present here, by my estimation. - You might do Prof Brock's contributions better service by making good use of her scientific findings in writing articles, as I suspect you intend to do. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:INDEPENDENT sources indicate notability. The lede is just a list of degrees and a lab where she worked. Awards is just a grant with a list of publications, and the current research is just a link to basic primary studies. Nothing that qualifies for WP:PROF beyond someone who became a non-professor scientist and published. Seeing as the article creator has a WP:COI [20], their edits would pretty much be entirely deleted anyways, which would blank the page. This subject is also a post-doc, where the bar would be even higher for notability I'd think. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability standards mentioned above. Cannot be improved to the point where that can be addressed. South Nashua (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A GS h-index of 16 is nowhere near enough to pass WP:Prof in a very highly cited field. Off to a good start but WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Notability standards referenced above are irrelevant. Great influence in the field is not only recognized in the form of honors, and it is presumptuous to assume that only the most titled scientists have made the most progress in their respective fields. Clearly Brock has more than enough references to back up her contributions to symbiosis study, (there are plenty of other existing pages out there with far less), and the fact that she is a post-doc shouldn't take away from the importance of her work. Women in science struggle enough as it is, not having a faculty title does not discredit the significance of the advancements she's made.Ardcosta (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This scientist does in fact meet one of the notability criteria (WP:NACADEMIC), specifically Criterion 1. Her research discovering "farming" behavior in the unicellular eukaryote Dictyostelium discoideum is arguably a significant discovery given that she and her work were featured in notable scientific media, such Nature Podcasts and Science Magazine, and in popular media, such as BBC, Wired, and USA Today. Her work has been cited 77 times since 2011 and has even been referenced in published texts. Regarding her authorship, Nature, Nature Communications, Development, Genes and Development, and PNAS are all high quality journals in which she has published, which boosts her notability. Also, her h-index of 16 is very good given that she doesn't have her own lab and is absolutely comparable to new professors.Ericapryu (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to criterion 1 of Wikipedia's notability criterion, a person can be considered "notable" if he or she has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique, or idea, made a significant discovery, or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. This can also be more than one important bit of work. If you utilize resources such as google scholar you can see all of Debra's statistics in terms of her "notability" as an author. She has over 682 citations, an h-inex of 16, and an i10-index of 20 which is above average for most scientists. Her farming paper alone received 77 citations and one of which she did in the Gomer lab has almost one hundred citations. For references, a majorly popular paper obtains a couple to a few hundred. The impact that Debra has had on the Dictyostelium field has been nothing but class-leading and although her name may not be as prominent in the general field of biology, her work definitely distinguishes her. RV_Mather (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The prior 3 "keeps" appear to be from undergraduates from the same institution as the subject and who work either for her or at least with her and, additionally, who are members of this WP project run by the lab to which the subject belongs. Agricola44 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your sharp eyes. The three Keeps should have declared a WP:COI. Xxanthippe (talk).

Keep. There's been a lot of smoke blown in the keep !votes so far. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but please bear in mind that this isn't our first rodeo: the notability guideline for academics are designed to give us a lot of latitude in keeping academics with notable work wouldn't otherwise stand a chance of meeting Wikipedia's standard criteria for inclusion. That long-standing consensus is unlikely to be swayed by special pleading in this case. With that said, I do think there's a case to be made that Brock's discovery of amoeba "farming" bacteria meets WP:PROF#C1. It was published in Nature, and while the number of citations is surprisingly low (77 cites in 6 years) it's still respectable, and it was very widely reported on in the popular science press: [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Most of these articles quote Brock extensively. However, if kept, the article would need a thorough rewrite to remove the overt promotionalism in its current version. – Joe (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the discovery is all that wonderful this will, in the fullness of time, be confirmed by citations. WP:Not a crystal ball. Until then- WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

What I'm contending is that the 70 or so citations it has racked up, and more pertinently significant coverage in multiple reliable popular science periodicals, is enough to demonstrate that it is a notable discovery. Although I admit that it's definitely marginal relative to our usual standard. – Joe (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

70 citations is nowhere near enough to demonstrate a notable discovery. Several thousand would be more persuasive. The mentions in popular journals are just churnalism applied the the area of science; this is becoming increasingly frequent. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Oh? All of these pieces look substantially different to me, and none seem to be based on a press release. Sometimes you do see that kind of thing, but we're talking about Scientific American, Science, the BBC, the New York Times, etc., here. They're high quality sources. – Joe (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've had a chance to take a proper look at this case and found the following. Her citation record is as indicated above, h-index of 16, which, although we often take as borderline, must be judged in light of a number of other mitigating factors. First, biology and the biomedical sciences are among the highest citation fields and her sum total of ~500 is not at all out of the ordinary for researchers in these fields. Moreover, all of Dr. Brock's highest cited articles, shown at GS, appear to represent work done either as a technician or a grad student under the direction of senior faculty, first Richard Gomer and later Joan E. Strassmann. We defer to seniority here in that we recognize that such papers are not the independent contributions of the student. Though Brock has been involved in science for decades, it seems she only recently earned her doctorate and is currently a postdoc in Strassmann's lab. I think Xxan's assessment of WP:TOOSOON is spot on. Agricola44 (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Notability per WP:PROF not yet evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my opinion on this: https://sociobiology.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/is-wikipedia-anti-intellectual-compare-athletes-to-academics-and-the-answer-is-yes/ Agelaia (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that standards of notability for athletes are so low is no reason to lower them for scientists. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Agelaia: Re "I feel passionately that in the best world, Wikipedia would cover all scientists" from your blog: are scientists somehow more deserving or worthy of coverage than people in other professions? Or, do you simply want Wikipedia to be a gargantuan directory of all of humanity? I think you have to be very careful in flippantly throwing around accusations of anti-intellectualism. WP certainly has its many and significant problems, but a notability threshold for academics that is too high is certainly not one of them. Agricola44 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. much too soon--a better judgememt will be possible in a few years. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to delete this piece. The researcher is at a top university, gives talks all over the world, has discovered something really important and keeps doing so. I fail to understand this judgement. Completely.Agelaia (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please allow me an attempt at clarification then. Like you, many of the panelists here are accomplished scientists and know how the scientific process works. Your own website lists Brock as a postdoc in your lab, indicating she works under your direct supervision rather than independently. Consequently, your claim that Brock's discoveries are wholly and immediately attributable to her would seem to pose quite a burden of proof, especially in light of your own binding rules for your grads & postdocs that includes: Do not begin a project without a careful plan approved by the PIs. Although most investigators are not quite so formal with this, everyone understands that science, especially experimental science runs according to this "chain of command" for junior people. The other bits, like giving talks, are what all scientists do, so these activities in and of themselves do not demonstrate notability. Agricola44 (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Agricola44: Is there actually a guideline that shows a consensus for this "chain of command" argument or are you making it up as you go along? As far as I can tell all WP:PROF requires is that the subject has authored a highly cited work, which Brock has, and/or that they have made a significant discovery, and we have multiple reliable sources that attribute the farming amoeba discovery to Brock. It's not up to us to second-guess the norms of scientific attribution. Your contention that Brock cannot claim the credit for papers she is the (first) author of or discoveries she is widely described as making, just because she had a supervisor at the time (who doesn't?), smacks of WP:OR to me. – Joe (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Making it up" – sigh. This is the way that academic science research works and any arrangement to the contrary would be highly atypical. Importantly, the burden of proof would be on any junior claiming that they operate independently in terms of funding, research idea/design/etc (though not so much on the actual execution of the experiments, which is typically the (assigned) responsibility of the grad/postdoc). Hence, my statement that the burden lies with Drs. Strassmann and Brock and, to repeat what I just said, Strassmann's own published rules indicate that hers is a conventional lab where juniors operate under her direction. Moreover, the main claim in the article says the discovery was part of her dissertation. I hope your next request will not be for me to furnish a source saying that grad students likewise do their research under the direction of an advisor. Agricola44 (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

WP:INVALIDBIO is also relevant here. BLPs don't gain notability by proxy. They need to have standalone notability. This person hasn't done things on their own as a researcher yet (or specifically is a primary investigator as her advisors would have been). The notability on the amoeba papers goes to her advisors in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Agricola44: I am well aware of the norms of attribution in the scientific community, but they are just that: a matter for the scientific community. The farmer amoeba discovery has clearly been attributed to Brock as she is the first author of the paper and cited as the discoverer in numerous reliable sources (@Kingofaces43: so nobody is arguing for notability by proxy). It's not up to us to question that attribution. Your assertion that the credit instead goes to her supervisor, Joan Strassman, is particularly absurd given that Professor Strassman is here, in this discussion, telling us that Brock made the discovery! But I supposed I should not be surprised that someone who considers themselves a higher authority on scientific legitimacy than Nature and Elsevier also thinks they're a higher authority on attribution than the actual authors of a paper... – Joe (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should think twice about holding up the Sa'id article as any kind of moral example. The establishment gave that person a major science award for publishing some high-school level "research" in a well-known junk science journal, either because somebody on the committee did not bother to vet the work or because there were larger socio-political factors at play. We should be embarrassed to be carrying this mistake forward. Any working scientist will recognize that nonsense, just as she would recognize the fact that postdocs work under the supervision of their advisors. Whatever goes on in the outside world, we inside of WP cannot acquiesce to fakery. Agricola44 (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Most of what you said is irrelevant here. The way student-advisor publications work is that the student is the first author, but it's the advisor who gets the credit, etc. as if they were the first author when it comes to contact, press, notability, etc. in the real world (for better or worse, but that's how the system works). If this were a bunch of a scientists without a student-advisor aspect, then you default to the first author. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly isn't how it works in my field, nor is it what Strassman herself (the senior author) says below, nor is it what multiple press sources have said regarding the discovery. – Joe (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Strassmann seems to be somewhat more conscientious than the average PI in promoting her postdocs, but the fact remains that, in Strassmann's own words, hers is a conventional biology lab where postdocs work under her supervision. It's really as simple as that. Agricola44 (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note to closer. Upon further review, it appears all the keep votes (excluding Joe Roe's) are in violation of WP:COI and cannot be used in assessing WP:CONSENSUS here. Each of the other keeps have provided information indicating they are directly affiliated with Strassman. It's starting to look like a pretty clear case for a delete at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how there's "violation COI" here as I see nothing to show anyone is connected here, I know for certain I myself am not. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See here re all but Joe Roe's Keep !votes. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The undeclared COI is that RV_Mather, Ericapryu, and Ardcosta are students who either work for or directly with the subject in the same lab and Agelaia is the head of the lab, i.e. the subject's boss. Seems that the off-line canvassing has stopped since the COI was discovered. Agricola44 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

To be fair, I'm quite sure there was no sneaky intent involved and they just weren't familiar with the COI rules hereabouts. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, my observation of canvassing (which there clearly was) made no statement regarding intent. I'm not sure it matters terribly, but you are probably right. Indeed, I think the page itself was created without any real awareness of WP notability requirements, which is why we're all here in the first place. Unfortunately, there are growing numbers of such classes and agenda-based meetups where budding editors are urged-on, but then turned loose without much appreciation of the norms & guidelines. Agricola44 (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Agree that there is no bad faith in this case, but note that such conduct often reflects poorly on the reputation of the institution involved. The instructor responsible should take note. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Kingofaces43: Does WP:COI actually prohibit editors with a COI from participating in deletion discussions or suggest that their arguments be discounted? – Joe (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, describing this as an undisclosed COI seems a tad unfair when each of their user pages clearly identify that they're associated with either Brock or Strassman (via her WikiEd course). – Joe (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally when an editor has a COI, they are expected to bring up edits they would like to have done on the talk page, but their opinions are not used in assessing consensus. It's the uninvolved or non-COI editors that are used to weight consensus. The same standards would apply here (for those of us that work with COI, the class webpage isn't quite enough for disclosure, but the main issue was them coming here without ever mentioning it). What really matters for the COI though is the link to canvassing. Whether they were aware of our norms at Wikipedia or not is a valid question, but this is a pretty standard case of where COI invalidates their votes in the matter either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unconvincing for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has been a hard case. However there is clearly not a high enough level of citation to pass prong 1 of the academics test and nothing else comes close. The argument that the subjects work got attention in the scientific press ignores we need coverage of the person to pas GNG. This is not significant coverage of the person at a level to pass GNG, so we need to delete this article. This person may well one day be a notable academic, but they are not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. talk makes a persuasive case. Edwardx (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venmurasu

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Per WP:GNG, I could not find significant coverage of this book (or books) in any reliable sources. I propose it be redirected to B. Jeyamohan. Odie5533 (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a book series written in the Tamil language by noted author Jeyamohan. Practically every one in Tamil literary world is aware of this work. I have included 15 references already. Please state what you consider as 'reliable' sources before placing anything for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhusam (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to B. Jeyamohan per nom.. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify on what basis you are deleting. What sources did you check? I have given references to major magazines that discuss this 10 -volume work. India Today, The Hindu and Swarajya are major Indian newspapers and magazines that discuss this. There are Youtube videos discussing this work. You are ordering the deletion of a work without paying any attention to the references on Tamil literary scape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhusam (talk • contribs) 06:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeyamohan writes the Venmurasu novel sequence on his website and eventually it gets published in the printed format .The entire novel sequence is available online, you can verify it in the below link. Also the printed version is available for sale in the publishers website. "Kizhakku pathippagam" publishes the book. I recommend contacting the publishers for confirmation. You can find their contact on the bottom of their website.

Venmurasu online: http://www.jeyamohan.in/%E0%AE%B5%E0%AF%86%E0%AE%A3%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%81#.WIRrC7YrKAy

Publishers website: https://www.nhm.in/shop/9789384149093.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabumrgm (talk • contribs) 08:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt the work exists. I do not believe it is notable by the GNG because I was unable to find any significant coverage of the book in reliable secondary sources. Having youtube videos or multiple links to his sites does not impart notability on the subject. A simple google search for the story returns only 9,000 hits. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--TaPari (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wiki, I am not sure you realize the volume, literary quality and readership of this all time massive work ever - 'Venmurasu' which is happening in Tamil literary context. This work which is based on the Indian epic Mahabharatha, have detailed characterization of almost all the characters related to Hindu mythology.

The writer updates one chapter everyday in his website www.jeyamohan.in from January 1, 2014. More than 900 chapters have been written so far and the readership of this epic have always increased or maintained good numbers ever since it was started 3 years ago. Am sure there will be more than 5000 unique readers on a daily basis continuously for the past 3 years (you may get exact numbers from the writer or you may refer here -https://www.similarweb.com/website/jeyamohan.in#overview). This is a quite a feat for the work of its size and that too in Tamil literary context where you may not find many readers for a literary work.

Since the work was in Tamil language and readers belong to Tamil native, obviously you wont find many articles/links/reviews in English (Though, many links have been cited by fellow contributors) and is the reason for 'only 9000 hits' when you search for Venmurasu in English font. Please try out searching for this work in Tamil font ’வெண்முரசு’ which returns 86,300 results in google as of today(I wouldn't agree measuring a literary work's importance through google search results. Giving this 86k results example just as a fact!). As a matter of fact, being a regular reader of 'Venmurasu', I have never googled it since I directly read it through authors website.

Not only the author, the readers also quite actively engaged with this work continuously and you can see the readers response to the work here: http://venmurasudiscussions.blogspot.in/ -a dedicated blogspot to save the readers response on Venmurasu which is owned and run by the writer. There are already 3636 unique letters published in this site for the 900+ chapters of Venmurasu in the last 3 years. You can find the readers letters about the work on almost all days ever since the work was started. This shows the kind of impact the work had on its readers.

Apart from the written text, most chapters of Venmurasu is accompanied by a digital painting relevant to the story's plot. This is done by the Illustrator-Shanmugavel as mentioned in the wiki page. You can see the paintings in his website (http://www.shanmuga.net/venmurasu/book1/). Paintings of first four novels are only updated in his website. But, you can find paintings for other novels also by directly going through each chapter.

Still if you want to delete the page, I can say you are unaware of what you are doing and it will be a big misfortune for Tamil literary readers and Mahabaratha's followers spread across the world. Thanks.

comment added by TaPari

--TaPari (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what are considered to be the reliable secondary sources. There is a meeting of 35 scholars happening every month in Chennai to discuss this great work (till now this work has crossed 12000 pages, spanning across 13 novles). Please refer the link https://epicvenmurasu.wordpress.com/ for the detailed articles written on this work. These articles are the result of the discussions happened in that meeting. Please refer Chennai Meetings for more details. These meetings are happening from May 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunachalam maharajan (talk • contribs) 11:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some dude's wordpress blog is not a reliable source. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is very doubtful if any of those recommending deletion even looked at Tamil language or Indian sources. I guess they want to see European/American sources like Jstor, Nytimes or The Guardian. The number of entries in English Google are not indicative of notability in Tamil context. It's a very patronizing way of looking at non-English/non-European works of art — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhusam (talk • contribs) 17:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  °Tamil Writer Jeyamohan is writing the Indian's great Epic Mahabharatha, as a novel sequence. He has written twelve books on this series so far and all are updated in his web site

( link:- http://www.jeyamohan.in/%E0%AE%B5%E0%AF%86%E0%AE%A3%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%81#.WIYwERt97IU ),

out of which ten books are released as paperpack by Kizhakku publishers. You can search for the books "venmurasu" in the link provided here  ( link:-https://www.nhm.in/shop/search.php?mode=search&page=1&keep_https=yes  )

You can also refer the below link. It came on Tamil's leading newspaper Dinamani during 2014 ( Dinamani is Tamil daily newspaper. The newspaper was established in 1933 and is owned by The New Indian Express Group )

http://www.dinamani.com/all-editions/edition-chennai/chennai/2014/jan/23/%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%8A%E0%AE%9F%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4-%E0%AE%B5%E0%AF%86%E0%AE%B3%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%9A%E0%AE%AE-825484.html

This link is from Straitstimes ( an English-language daily broadsheet newspaper based in Singapore currently owned by Singapore Press Holdings (SPH))

http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/novelist-once-begged-around-india

Below two links says the reviews of the novell during its book release function happened on November 2014.These updates are from Tamil's popular daily newspapers / Online news

Dinamani:- ( Dinamani is Tamil daily newspaper. The newspaper was established in 1933 and is owned by The New Indian Express Group )

http://www.dinamani.com/cinema/2014/nov/10/நானும்-கமலும்-செய்ய-முடியாத-1009873.html

The Hindu ( Tamil ) ( The Hindu (Tamil) (Tamil: தி இந்து) is a Tamil daily newspaper published by The Hindu Group)

http://m.tamil.thehindu.com/general/literature/கூடவே-பயணிக்கும்-வெண்முரசு/article6469421

http://m.indiaglitz.com/kamal-and-illayaraja-on-mahabharatha-novel-tamil-news-118282.html

below page has the reviews for the Venmurasu Novel sequences

http://solvanam.com/?p=35582

The YouTube link given below has all the reviews for the Venmurasu Novell. Reviews are given my Veteran writers in Tamil litrature and creators in Tamil Film Industry

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-Nq4wl4QCG5DFngFPb6nGA

Please refer the links above and keep the venmurasu wiki page always active. Thank you

Hi See below the reference to Venmurasu from The Hindu, a national newspaper in India. http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/Jeyamohan-says-he-turned-down-Padma-award/article14020899.ece

This link below from an interview of the Author published in Singapore. http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/novelist-once-begged-around-india

One more link from Leading Indian news paper http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/sharad-joshis-family-tamil-writer-say-no-to-padma-honour/

Leading Tamil/Indian cinema personalities on the novel http://www.indiaglitz.com/kamal-and-illayaraja-on-mahabharatha-novel-tamil-news-118282.html

it is not some dude's Wordpress blog it is the blog/website of the writer himself which is one of the leading websites in India. (global ranking 252,017 and India Ranking 13000 as per www.similarweb.com) I request you to consult someone from Tamil wiki team to check and verify this than rejecting this. Thanks.

@Odie, The wikipedia guidelines for reliable secondary sources says Mainstream Newspapers, Magazines and Journals including electronic media could be used as reliable secondary source. It is clearly stated in the guidelines that the references can be from any language not necessarily English. Reference from major Indian newspaper has already been given. I'm here just highlighting the authors of the articles and opinions.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/sharad-joshis-family-tamil-writer-say-no-to-padma-honour/ - This article written by the Indian Express editorial team mentions Venmurasu and the nature of the work.

http://www.dinamani.com/cinema/2014/nov/10/%E0%AE%A8%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%A9%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%B2%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%86%E0%AE%AF%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AF-%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%9F%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%AF%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%A4-1009873.html - In this interview, Ilaiyaraaja, a Padhma bushan award(third highest civilian ward given by Republic of India), holder opines on the work.

Are they not reliable sources as per GNG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabumrgm (talk • contribs) 10:09, January 25, 2017 (UTC)

This is serial of books, the story based on Mahabharatam.the first volume muthal kanal started on 3 years back, now 12 volumes are finished nearly 12000 pages story.The book was not completed yet, that why no major functions are conducted.But it is important book on Tamil.Tamil literature world deeply listening this book serial. No one give major positive and negative comments, because it effort writter sprit. In near future many people celebrat this book.the person,"Who Suggest to delete this book", has no knowledge about current Tamil literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conboy19 (talk • Bold textcontribs) 06:44, January 26, 2017 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure who all I am replying to, but I did look over the sources provided. Many of them are reliable sources and I don't dispute this. They do not, however, offer significant coverage of the subject, that is, the novel itself. They mainly cover the writer, which is why I recommend the article be redirected to his article. Note that his own blog, an interview he gave, and short blurbs do not support notability either. To support notability, they must be secondary sources offering significant coverage of the novel. The only one I saw that qualifies is the source provided below by K.e.coffman, and I can not confirm if the writing of the author "Jataayu" is reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Trying to correct for cultural bias, and admittedly going out on a limb do to so, Seems to be perhaps the major work of a major author. I can at least verify that the series is in Worldcat[29]. I do not have the language ability to do more than that, & there's the added complexity of possible alternate transcriptions. I suggest the contributor add the Tamil titles of the individual parts, at least. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author does have an article. I don't think it's a cultural bias here because Tamil newspapers simply aren't writing significant articles about the novel. I don't dispute the work exists. I just don't think it's notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of all the keep !votes, only one of them (DGG's) doesn't appear to be canvassed. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this is a well referenced article on an apparently notable book that is somewhat of a cultural phenomenon. This review "Venmurasu: A Sublime Literary Masterpiece In The Making" seems to confirm it; this appears to be a legit review. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•To the ones who argues for keeping, I feel that probably, if the Outline section of the article is given any sources this dispute wouldn’t have raised.

Mr Odie5533, has no dispute about the existence of the novel or the reliability of the sources given. I believe he just consider that most of the sources cover the efforts for the novel by the writer, appreciations, neglecting the content of the novel itself in a great manner, which is why he suggests that the article should be redirected to the author’s. I agree with it and in that case the content is not supporting notability.

But @Odie5533 , with all due respect, I should say that those were statements produced from the pure ignorance about the prevailing nature of the Tamil literary world. One could not find this large amount of data or opinions anywhere about another particular novel in Tamil.

I can see that you could find no reference about the content in any international journals or so (JSTOR, Shodhganga…). I could not much comment on that, but simply say that it is due to the prevailing research oriented attitude in institutions here. We see for a book to be acknowledged here takes even decades. But a tremendous effort like “Venmurasu” shall not be left unseen for that matter. I can also see the hesitations in the words who argue for keeping this. As a student of literature and reader of the novel, I knew that anything they say much will be exaggerations (for those who has not read) because of its majesty in nature.

Wiki norms: If you still are unsatisfied and do not take this as an argument, I would strongly suggest to take the help of Tamil wiki experts. There are much evident articles in ‘solvanam’ and ‘venmurasu discussions’ links about the content of the novel you seek for. I don’t think that just lacking the ability to understand the language, in the given links, would probably lead to deletion or redirection. As mentioned,it’s a major work of a major author. Keep. Srini94 (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kungumam - A leading Tamil Weekly Interview about the Novel https://www.facebook.com/pg/venmurasu/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1570223559866457 (Its prited weekly ,not possible to give Online link ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arangasamy (talk • contribs) 08:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Can you please specify the criteria for what constitutes an important literary work? As per your previous comments, it seems like coverage in a major media outlet about the work (and not just the author) is an important criteria.

If so, then this article alone will satisfy the criteria: (1) This is an article about the work (Venmurasu) and not just the author (Jeyamohan) (2) Swarajya is a major news outlet in India. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarajya_(magazine) (3) The novel release function was attended by some of the top personalities (Kamal Haasan and Ilaiyaraja) of Tamil Nadu, thereby providing enough credibility and legitimacy for the endeavor.

It is also covered by one of the largest networks in Southern India (Star Vijay), which has a 12 million viewership; The video url of the book release function posted here was not just a *mere* Youtube link; It is a web stream capture of the TV broadcast of this major TV network (please see the Logo of the TV network on the top-right hand corner of the video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zctRnEVukXg

See links below: Swarajya Article: https://swarajyamag.com/culture/venmurasu-a-sublime-literary-masterpiece-in-the-making Star Vijay TV viewership - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Vijay http://www.televisionpost.com/television/sun-tv-leads-viewership-charts-across-genres-barc/ http://www.afaqs.com/news/story/44063_BARC-releases-first-set-of-TV-ratings Media personalities/stars who attended the function and released the book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Haasan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilaiyaraaja

It will be good if you can provide an explanation of why this article and the magazine (Swarajya) does not fit the Wikipedia criteria? More links to news media coverage were provided by other Wiki users. Only if the clear criteria is provided, readers can provide adequate sources. Badabheem (talk)badabheem —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kgsat (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Odie5533
I am referring the notability guide.

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
As per the guide above, books have their own guideline which need to be followed

Following is the notability guideline for books in particular
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The book has won a major literary award.
The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. The five preceding criteria do not necessarily apply to books excluded by the threshold standards, and do not apply to books not yet published.

Evidence for item 1 I have provided 11 pieces of evidence below(as against minimum requirement of two). Also, the notability guideline doesn't state such reviews need to be in english only. The guideline only states such reviews need to be non-trivial.

Evidences for item 5 f the author is historically significant, then his books merit a separate article. The author is considered one among the eminent writers in India and he was awarded one of the top civilian awards Padma Shree by the Government of India. The author refused the award citing neutrality of his views. Further more, by sheer volume of his work, considering the number of published pages both in paper and online alone make the author a historically significant person.

Wiki page for Venmurasu in Tamil Language

Winner of Leading Tamil Literary award Look at the following Wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tamil_Literary_Garden. This wiki page is about a literary award part sponsored by University of Toronto. Jeyamohan was awarded the best author prize in 2015. So, there exists a wiki page that meets all the notability guide lines. The wiki page is accepted as a valid source of information. The wiki page pertains to literary awards. There is mention of Mr. Jeyamohan winning the award in 2015.

Verifiability In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.

Verifiability doesn't mean publication in English only. Major reviews published in leading Tamil language newspapers and video reviews in youtube are valid sources for verifiability. You have failed also to take into account that such newspapers and the eminient personalities providing video reviews have a valid wiki entry.

@Odie5533 If you still insist on deleting the seperate page for this book series, please give a definitive answer citing notability guidelines

Why is not Jeyamohan an author of historical significance?
Why are not the evidences submitted so far in terms of reviews from independent publications not sufficient to satisfy the condition laid down by rule 1 mention above in the notability guideline for books and verifiability rules of wikipedia?

Thanks

Satish (London)

Kgsat (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, why are so many of the Tamil writers only discussing the work on YouTube? Why don't they write articles about the great and famous novel? The articles you've posted either do not deal with the novel in in-depth coverage, or are an interview with the author and so do not support notability, or they are a very short announcement style article that don't go in-depth about it. Above was posted a Facebook link to a Swarajya article. Although I don't speak a word of Tamil, I noticed the caption for post says it is an interview. If this is so, then it too does not support notability. Frankly I am not willing to concede that point 5 for the book notability criteria is met. I do not believe the author rises to that level of historical significance at this time, and so everything he has ever penned does not derive notability from him and instead must show notability themselves.

For criteria 1, what I'd look for is for one reviewer out there, of the supposedly countless academics, journalists, and critics who are reading the novel, to have written a single review of some of the novel's chapters and get it published it an independent publication. Does such a review or critique exist? Or are the sources shown, of interviews, brief announcements, and YouTube sit-downs, all that exist? --Odie5533 (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeyamohan is an acclaimed writer and this is one his most stellar work to date and is being followed and reviewed across the globe. There are several Tamil language newpapers and sites which refers these. Sevaral inputs have been provided. This is being removed just because someone complained?

Msathia (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venmurasu is a significant effort in modern tamil literature. The great epic Mahabharatha is being rewritten as a modern tamil novel by Jayamohan. I am a reader in tamil literature and everyday reading this. Deleting an article on Venmurasu simply because the great work is being ignored by major english and tamil magaznes is absurd. On the contrary viki pedia should make it possible to enable many readers to notice thisIf Viki pedia deletes this it is a great injustice to Tamil world by viki pedia. By A common man A.Ramakrishnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.50.19.47 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the above evidences you can see below the videos from the Launch of the first 5 books in the series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zctRnEVukXg&feature=youtu.be You may argue that the function was organised by the Author and his friends, but look at the number of public participants. They cannot be 'arranged'. This is considered one of the major book launch events in Tamilnadu and in most parts of India which was telecast in Star Vijay TV (part of the international Star media group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Vijay ). I hope that shows the significance of Venmurasu in addition to the other evidences. The page itself may not be significant for someone not concerned with India or Tamil culture but it would help millions of Indians and Tamils who use English as second language and as langage of cross-cultural conversations. It would be a great service to that effect keeping with some of the core principles of Wikipedia. Thanks for looking into this guys. You all do great service to humanity and we much appreciate the work being done and especially your commitment to having thr right content. Cvalex (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Cyril Alex[reply]

Keep In the Venmurasu Novel introduction video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zctRnEVukXg&feature=youtu.be ) you can see Mr. Ashokamitran as the chair person and he is regarded as the foremost literary figure in Tamil.(*see Pulitzer Prize winner Aravind Adiga's remarks on Ashokamitran http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/the-boss-will-see-you-now/285083). Do you think it is possible if Jeyamohan is not a person of historical significance , all these important people will gather to introduce his "Venmurasu" navel? . This page should not be removed. If you have further questions and do not understand Tamil language and its landscape, please add additional admins who are well versed in this area. Bala.TX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.190.157.9 (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- I am not sure how we can measure the vernacular Literary work based on the numbers of search in the english , This is one of the marvelous work ever read in Tamil or English. I understand Wiki rules needs to have the secondary reference i believe the above notes are given reasonable proof the work is existing and followed by enough people. Whether the wiki page about Venmurasu is there are not that is nothing to do with popular tamil contemporary works worthiness. I felt Wiki follows quality not the quantity of people follows. Please keep it , it is worth one in Wiki.-PP

Keep: - The following are verifiable facts. 1. The author has won several awards for his literary contribution. The Indian government has awarded him a Padmashri award (which the author refused). He has been the recipient of Iyal award. 2. The author is a popular screenwriter and has contributed to several Tamil films including Angadith Theru, Kadal, Papanasam and several others. 3. Sheer length of the work makes it a notable one. This is a work of epic proportions that has run into more than 1200 chapters and 10000 pages. More than 10 parts of the book has been published. It is expected that this work will run into further 1800 chapters and will probably end up having 30000 pages. (This is the author's stated intention). 4. The content of the work is a retelling of Mahabharatha, an ancient Indian epic. 5. Widely popular in Tamil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvsubbu (talk • contribs) 18:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reply to Odie5533 - I had added 3 reviews of the book series on the online magazine Solvanam, please check the references section. There is also a 7-part review of the first book by critic and poet Marabinmaindan Muthiah. These do satisfy your minimum notability requirements. Madhusam (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenaro Yasit Terrazas II

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

Vanity article for very young entrepreneur, written in a very peacock style, lots of personal detail. I can barely find any convincing sources for him on a general search - lots of social media, the sourcing is either to his own website, or very passing mentions such as this report on a school soccer game. In the interests of fairness and demonstrating that I have done due process before nomination, I do see three other possible sources, but I am not sure if they are sufficent. For example, this seems to be a "submitted" article, rather than an independently commissioned piece. There is this piece from his college newspaper, but I don't know if it is sufficent. Thirdly, there is this, but it is local press, so I am not entirely convinced it all adds up to convincingly demonstrate notability. At best, it is surely WP:TOOSOON for someone who sounds like a nice enough guy, and who I wish well, but who seemingly hasn't yet reached sufficent notability. Mabalu (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Kawasaki, Guy (2011). Enchantment: The Art of Changing Hearts, Minds, and Actions. Penguin. ISBN 9781101475997.

[1]