Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 February	17 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 speedy keep. No reason given for deletion nomination (non-admin closure). Linguist ^talk|contribs 00:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Dewrani Meri Jithani

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

Reason Memberbot1.3 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Memberbot1.3: If you don't give a reason why you believe this article should be deleted, this discussion may be closed. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not positive, but I think something odd is going on with the above account. Home Lander (talk) 00:10, 17 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. Not enough evidence of notability, seems like, the illicitness of the nomination nonwithstanding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumi Shinoda

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. IMDB is not a source, though I personally think it is. Awards have to be specified if they were fan voted in or not. Trivial information is posted, Japanese TV appearances don't matter even though they do because people here don't watch Japanese TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk • contribs) 22:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strike as per WP:BLOCKEVASION. Unscintillating (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate was not listed on the daily log. I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 16. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject lacks a strong notability claim and reliable source coverage. However, the nominator's "people here don't watch Japanese TV" rationale invokes the very systemic bias they are protesting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitomi Tanaka (3rd nomination). Please read WP:POINT. As for the topic at hand, editor consensus at recent AfD debates holds that the Adult Broadcasting Award is not sufficiently significant or well-known to satisfy WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Super Comment Agreed that it doesn't meet requirements, a shame too as the subject is worthy but ego trips and deletion powers > information.ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strike as per WP:BLOCKEVASION. Unscintillating (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update. The nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet. WP:POINTy nomination but notability is dubious. No objection either way to continuing or closing this debate. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pronographic actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She's been an actress in 5 uncensored DVD movies, most japanese porn actress/es has never release anything uncensored! I started Category:Uncensored Japanese pornography and added her there. I added 'expand Japanese|日本語|date=February 2017' (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AF%A0%E7%94%B0%E3%81%82%E3%82%86%E3%81%BF) which by the way is long enough to indicate that she's famous in Japan. --Gstree (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability needs reliable sources to support it. The sources in the ja.Wikipedia article do not appear to be reliable, the closest thing to one appears to be a press release. The sources for the en.Wikipedia article are also unreliable. Finally, Category:Actors appearing in uncensored Japanese pornography is itself up for deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- ja.wiki article is very weak for notability, same as here on en.wiki. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. No real assertion of notability. Claimed awards are given by a broadcaster to promote its own programming, and therefore fail the well-known/significant test. Moreover, the "mature actress"/MILF category by consensus general fails that standard, regardless of the awardgiver; while the other award is so lacking in significance that there appears to be no RS documentation of the award's selection criteria, even in the native-language sources which document its mere existence. No biographical content. No reliable sourcing beyond databases; other source is promotional award announcement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Hullaballoo. DrStrauss talk 19:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:NPASR Blocked editors don't get free rides on deleting the content of ~~real~~ editors in good standing. The knowledge that the editor was a sock was posted before any !votes. If there is no one willing to do the work of preparing the community for a deletion discussion, there is no need for a deletion discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This argument contradicts WP:SKCRIT. When the nomination has been made by the sock of a banned/blocked editor, the discussion may be not closed as a speedy keep "if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's status was discovered", as was the case here. In this situation "the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments abov. Obviously not unscintillating's argument. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this obvious? At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baitbus, WP:DENY was meaningful to you. Unscintillating (talk) 14:31, 24 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. Article creator blanked the page, and as a result it was speedily deleted per G7.

Reana Ashley

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

Non-notable makeup artist lacking significant coverage. reddogsix (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising by policy violations alone. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person. Clearly promotional. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:25, 17 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. Ignoring comments from the blocked sockpuppet, there is still a consensus here that the subject of the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Mz7 (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aki Tomosaki

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. We do not know if the award was fan-voted or not. All about isn't a source, Amazon isn't a source and there's no independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk • contribs) 22:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strike as per WP:BLOCKEVASION. Unscintillating (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate was not listed on the daily log. I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 16. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator's focus on fan-based awards is spillover from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitomi Tanaka (3rd nomination), where the Aki Tomosaki was pointed out as WP:WAX. While the subject's notability is questionable at first look, this nomination looks WP:POINTy. • Gene93k (talk)
- Comment. This does not meet WP:GNG and we have to be sure on awards that could be fan voted. There are also no reputable sources otherwise. Idol dictionary and amazon don't meet the standards here.ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strike as per WP:BLOCKEVASION. Unscintillating (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're going off on a tangent since the Adult Broadcasting Award itself does not establish WP:PORNBIO notability and most award ceremonies identify the fan awards they issue. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agreed that it doesn't establish pornbio notabilityChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

strike as per WP:BLOCKEVASION. Unscintillating (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update. The nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet. Notability may be dubious but there are no outstanding delete !votes yet. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress. Does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability established. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. No real assertion of notability. Claimed award is given by a broadcaster to promote its own programming, and therefore fail the well-known/significant test. Moreover, the "mature actress"/MILF category by consensus general fails that standard, regardless of the awardgiver. Negligible biographical content. Little reliable sourcing beyond databases; other source are promotional or retailer pages. Of the two potentially reliable sources, the Tokyo Journal provides only background information on the porn industry in Japan, not the article subject; while "Sake-Drenched Postcards" is a component of a conspicuously dubious self-published source. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close WP:NPASR Socks don't get free rides to delete the content of editors in good standing. This nomination was marked as a sock nomination before any !votes were posted. If there is no one willing to do the work to prepare the community for a deletion discussion, there is no need for a deletion discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This argument contradicts WP:SKCRIT. When the nomination has been made by the sock of a banned/blocked editor, the discussion may be not closed as a speedy keep "if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's status was discovered", as was the case here. In this situation "the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wolfowitz's argument above (and others). Fyddlestix (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Chapman

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

ADV voice actress whose only major role was as Sylia in Bubblegum Crisis Tokyo 2040. Some random roles as supporting characters as with Chrono Crusade, Rahxephon, Godannar and Dennou Coil. No anime convention appearances to note. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP as well as WP:RS. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough significant roles to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable person.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:27, 23 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) 20:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akber Rashid

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

Minor model lacking significant support. Awards are minor in nature. WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets general, minimum relevant criteria, verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. The significant awards and nominations are relevant and not "minor in nature..."

Buraka Som Sistema, James Jaysen Bryhan, PW_(rapper), Aje Filmworks, Shoggy Tosh, Ikenna Obi, Jasmia Robinson, Camp Mulla, Florence_Kasumba. Article is open source for expansion, additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fllrfth (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO standards for notability. No significant coverage from reliable sources. GAB^gab 01:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. The awards are not significant awards which would establish notabiliyt. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ meets basic criteria, "not everything that is notable makes headlines, and not everything that is notable is easily searchable online." -Wikipedia, "notability does not always depend the depth of coverage of the topic or the individual, nor that it be immediately available online." -Wikipedia, "it is nowhere mandated that the reliable source being used to verify an assertion "must" itself be significant or in-depth... only that the verification itself must be in a reliable source." -Wikipedia, "If an actor manages to maintain a low profile and so fails WP:GNG by not having wide coverage in popular press that is readily available though an internet search, that "low profile" and failing GNG does not exclude him as long as the career is itself properly verified in reliable sources." -Wikipedia "Wikipedia:Notability (paragraph 2) specifically allows that the GNG does not always have to be met." -Wikipedia. The article doesn't read as a "advertisement" but reads like any other accepted Wikipedia article of same, similar, stubs, and as demonstrated, the awards were shown significant. Per Wikipedia's guidelines, the article is in standing with or better standing than numerous Wikipedia accepted articles of same, similar, stubs, that are not red flagged for deletion, Jan Hilary, Mika Hagi, Tajana Jeremic, Erika Johnson, Katerina Kanonidou, Lolita Hoarau, Daniela Eleftheraki, Lyudmila Bikmullina, Valeria Bystritskaia, Cody Callahan, Mónica Castillo, Ingrid Finger Fllrfth (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point specifically to where such claims are made, because that isn't in Wikipedia:Notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the full documentation of the excerpts that properly and specifically addresses the article were easily found at Wikipedia: The GNG and notability for actors Fllrfth (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay that may provide small guidance and advice but it is not a policy or guideline for not ability. --Whpq (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

within that documentation factual relevant guidelines are noted, ie Wikipedia:Notability (paragraph 2) specifically instructs that a topic can also be considered notable, even failing the GNG, if it otherwise meets the criteria outlined in one of the more "subject specific guidelines." Although meeting basic, minimum criteria, the article also meets basic criteria of several "subject specific guidelines," including WP:ENT, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC- topic specific notability sub-criteria as set out in WP:Notability (people). But more importantly, "before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." -Wikipedia:Notability. Fllrfth (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Fails WP:GNG and awards do not seem notable as well. Jupitus Smart 10:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (paragraph 2) specifically instructs that a topic can also be considered notable, even failing the GNG, if it otherwise meets the criteria outlined in one of the more "subject specific guidelines, "the person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times" -WP:ANYBIO, and as demonstrated, the awards were proven significant and notable. Fllrfth (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet the general notability criteria, nor the specific notability criteria for actors and models. The only actual claim to notability is the awards he has won, and as shown above those are not sufficiently notable. WP:TOOSOON would seem to apply. --bonadea contributions talk 18:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As shown, meets basic, minimum criteria, also for anyone or any entity to state "The awards are not significant awards," "Awards are minor in nature," "not sufficiently notable," etc... has not or did not want to do an extremely fast and easy search or ignored the fact that... edp24, atlinka online, zen magazine, pulse, fab magaine, DSBC Productions, Sauti Sol, Uga Music, African Cuisine Magazine, All Africa, Brony the movie, Afro Fire, Modern Ghana, Red Pepper, Tropics Magazine, The BFT Online, Chimp Reports, Arts Central, NYASA Times, Big Eye, Leader SGH, African Dazzle, Abbay Media, Mad News UK, Howwe, Malawi 24, silverfmgh, Black History Studies, News lexpoint, ugblizz, Gospel GH, Nottingham News Centre, Meltingpot News, Shatta Wale News, Penzaarville, African Entertainment has proven to be well known, notable, significant etc... Fllrfth (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, these are passing mentions (not-in-depth discussions) of the awards and do not evoke the award's Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - something that's possibly not obvious: that other Wikipedia articles about other people might mention the awards does not actually mean that they are notable (per Wikipedia's peculiar definition of notability). --bonadea contributions talk 20:11, 25 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 00:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lumberjacks: The Musical

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

Doesn't seem to have any presence beyond this presumably amateur production at a high school in Illinois. Boneymau (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a one off school musical. Google search doesn't throw up any results so presumably not notable. PriceDL (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks any sort of coverage period. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not appear to be much in the way of reliable sources that discuss this musical at all. While a few hits do come up in the usual searches, they are from unreliable sources such as blogs, or from primary sources, like the official website of the company that performed it. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 23 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 00:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kinraid the Musical

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

Probably too soon in 2009, and nothing seems to have happened since. Boneymau (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - I can find no coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching for sources, I have found almost nothing that mentions this play at all, and the majority of those few results I did find are just mirrors of this article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:55, 23 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) 20:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teradata Kylo

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

I can't find appreciable applicable coverage based on a search for the words "kylo" and "teradata" in the same source, let alone as a fixed phrase, to establish notability. Since I posted a PROD tag, the author added one source, an O'Reilly article, that qualifies as one applicable source, but I didn't find others. (The author added another source at the same time, but it doesn't mention this software.) Largoplazo (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear promotion of a minor product by a single-purpose account. Probably not worth a redirect, but certainly the Teradata article needs to be updated to mention ThinkBig. Much other work like rewriting the timeline from bullets into prose and out of historical present, using cited sources etc. Tiny COI to disclose: I was a Teradata employee very briefly, albeit not in the ThinkBig group (which ironically might not be very "big"!). W Nowicki (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Open Stage

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

Doesn't appear to be independently notable with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Possibly merge to the University of Melbourne. Boneymau (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not inherently notable. Ajf773 (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for a redirect to an article about all three theaters at Melbourne Uni. Cannot see anything sufficient for even basic notability. Also there seems to be a identically named facility in Christchurch NZ so some dab is also required. Aoziwe (talk) 11:34, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Duntsch

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

Article was just restored from a speedy deletion. Subject appears to be a WP:BLP1E candidate, as they are the subject of a trial for malpractice. Additional concerns are that the article may not be able to be written fron a WP:NPOV due to subject matter, and also this may qualify as WP:NOTNEWS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Article needs some polishing but is a valid entry for a crime bio article Wikiwriter12345678 (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Deleting this article would amount to open source malpractice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.100.215 (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is covered in multiple books over several years including The Remarkable Case of Dr Christopher Duntsch and The Truth About Big Medicine. There are multiple events here and ample coverage per WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Andrew and comments made at DRV. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Unsure~~ Keep That the article called him "Dr. Death" which appears to be unsupported by the ref is concerning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's fixed now. I split the paragraph but didn't attach the references to both halves. Natureium (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has been convicted now, and the story is covered in multiple books and articles. The Jade Knight (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the references listed in the article are from reliable sources and dedicated to the subject. Meets notability requirements. Tapered (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I had initially thought this was a BLP1E case but looking closer it seems that he's gotten himself in the news multiple times. A sort of low rent Jayant Patel. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the first doctor in the US sentenced to prison for malpractice. That is very significant.96.29.35.192 (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely covered person and an important court decision. Ekem (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely covered and needs to be preserved for reference Eslonim (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is barely any coverage on this guy. No major, big name sources. At this point in time his wikipedia page just seems like a hit job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.121.93 (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest you Google it. There's vast, major media coverage, including national media outlets. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just added three national news citations (CBS News, Washington Post and USA Today) but could have easily added 50 more. The notability and media coverage is extensive and beyond any dispute. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable as one of the most prominent, systematic medical malpractice cases. Extensive national and even global media coverage. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Maintains neutrality. Notable in that a life sentence is unprecedented for medical malpractice. Provides basic information not readily available elsewherre. Will be the first place many will look for more information than is typically provided in news reports. TeArtUscur (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep massively notable case that appears to be a catalyst toward changing some things about the medical profession, at least in the US. Sources are abundant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think my vote should be obvious, as I created the page and was able to find quite a few reputable sources and there are several civil suits pending. Natureium (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of coverage exists to demonstrate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:34, 23 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. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Dupree

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

Sources are either unreliable/selfpublished, not enough for notability, or only mention Wayne Dupree in passing. Business Insider article, Politico article, and Salon article only mention him in passing. WCBM, CNN, and MSNBC only have him on as a pundit for an episode. All others are primary sources that are either selfpublished, unreliable, or not enough for notability. (If anyone can find good, reliable, secondary sources, please add them to the article.) – 🐱? (talk) ^{(ping me!)} 20:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've reviewed the sources present in the article as well as conducting my own searches for substantial independent coverage of the subject. I agree with the nomination that, at the moment, there is insufficient coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE since my searches only turned up more brief mentions in reliable sources like these: [1] [2] [3]. SmartSE (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a New York Times citation to the article from August 2016 that quoted Dupree as it related to black America and the election. Cllgbksr (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added a Washington Post citation to the article from 2016. WaPo referred to Dupree as a "media figure". Cllgbksr (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Created a Social Media section and moved the MIT election influencer citation there. Cllgbksr (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw all of those. The issue is that none of these are direct coverage, which is what is needed for a page to be found as "notable". – 🐱? (talk) ^{(ping me!)} 23:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Basic "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" Cllgbksr (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The new sources are still brief quotes and trivial mentions. What we need are a few articles that are about Dupree, not more articles on other subjects that happen to mention Dupree. - MrOllie (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Basic "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" WP says otherwise. There are enough multiple independent sources in this article- when combined - establish his notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added NY Daily news citation on Dupree.Cllgbksr (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This vote should be disregarded!!! It's by the creator and only contributor to the article! Tapered (talk)

Comment Your comment about me being only contributor is patently false. According to a tool provided by WP, 13 users have edited this article. I am not the only contributor. Cllgbksr (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong and careless, only checking the 50 most recent entries. However, your indignation is a red herring. Conservatively, you've made 70% of the edits, and you created the article. I also wanted to make absolutely sure that any Admin reviewing the debate knows your position. Tapered (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

explained MIT study, 2016 election influencer results on social media, that ranked Dupree #65 in a field of 150, surpassing Fox News host Bret Baer who ranked #75 Cllgbksr (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This person gets coverage in reliable sources, but nothing dedicated. Most of the coverage is related Trump and his campaign, so redirect to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and/or United States presidential campaign, 2016. Tapered (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: would require including mention of Dupree in the articles, if he's not there. Tapered (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found a new video of Dupree on the ground during the Baltimore riots in 2015 as a contributor for Fox News, Greta's "On the Record" show, so that falls outside of Trump. He may support Trump but it is not what defines him or his radio show.Cllgbksr (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's trivial, as per the example @ WP:GNG. Another way of saying that is that he's not the subject of the clip—it's not dedicated to him. Doesn't confer notability. Tapered (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@What cat?: I question your statement "WCBM, CNN, and MSNBC only have him on as a pundit for an episode". Question: How many times must someone appear on a national cable news network with millions of viewers - before that person is considered "notable"? Once, five times, twenty? The second that show airs and his name is displayed at the bottom of the screen - and millions see it - he is notable. Cllgbksr (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As many times as it takes for independent sources to decide that they're important and write an article about them (as opposed to an article mentioning them). Sometimes this happens right away, but plenty of journalists 'fly under the radar' for years. - MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: Nice dodge. My point is his exposure being live on the air in front of millions of viewers, is the equivalent of an article dedicated solely to Dupree. Probably going to have to get an administrator involved and request a variance for this article.Cllgbksr (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I try to give these sort of articles the benefit of the doubt, but looking at the WP:RS content, the trivial mentions are insufficient to satisfy our notability criteria. Edwardx (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardx: @MrOllie: There are 23 references for this article, 17 of which are secondary, reliable, independent sources (NY Times, WaPo, Business Insider, etc...)...five are RSBN & one for Spreaker for context. Let me remind everyone, Keep/Delete votes do not determine the outcome - whether this article is deleted. It is the debate. Per WP guidelines not all of the article has to be solely about the subject. Just found this article (yeah, I know it's Breitbart and that's a whole different debate as to whether it can be considered a "reliable source") but this article is not a "trivial mention". http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2014/04/01/wayne-dupree-texas-must-lead-the-conservative-movement/ Cllgbksr (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Breitbart article added to lede... Make that 24 references. Cllgbksr (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed at WikiProject Conservatism: [4]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the Findings of Cllgbksr Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yoshiman6464 was canvassed by Cllgbksr, diff Edwardx (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Edwardx: Nope, major fail EdwardX. Yoshiman6464 was not canvassed. That user has contributed multiple times to article which I considered substantial, and it's allowed for me to simply advise article was up for deletion under WP guidelines. My post to that user was neutral.Cllgbksr (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Admins please note: User:Yoshiman6464 is a contributor the the article in question, notified selectively by User:Cllgbksr, creator and predominant editor of the article, who also added a "keep" to the debate. The only 2 keeps so far. Tapered (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Admins please note: User:Tapered seems to be obsessed with this article (i.e. wanting it to fail) due to multiple posts on this page and my talk page. Quick sweep of their contributions lean user may be pro-Clinton. Subject of this article Dupree, a black, conservative radio show host and political commentator, opposed Clinton in general election. Dupree is a former member of Democratic party and now a fierce critic of the party. User:Tapered may have an ulterior motive wanting this article to be deleted, i.e. political censorship. User:Tapered has also made a false statement on this talk page, that I was the sole contributor to article, when 13 users have edited it (still waiting on that apology). Admins also note Per WP: (re: votes User:Tapered seems so infatuated with): "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments."WP:CLOSEAFD My post to User:Yoshiman6464 as a contributor to article was that article was up for nomination for deletion, and was made only for the "opportunity to weigh in on the discussion."Cllgbksr (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea to knock off the personal characterizations used as a prelude. That's a diversionary tactic. Also, note that "false statement" imputes bad faith to a lazy, careless mistake. I'm no exemplar, but it's a good idea to assume good faith. You sent notifications to only 2 of the other contributors, and the wording of the notifications wasn't neutral. Again, if that's not canvassing, it's close. Further, you're posting heavily to an AfD discussion concerning an article you created, and to which you're the dominant contributor/editor. That's not very good form. Tapered (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing User:Tapered has said on this page I agree with is that he was "wrong and careless". This article stands on it's own merit regardless of who is primary contributor or how many edited it (13 users). 27 references, 21 of which are secondary and independent (New York Times, WaPo, Business Insider, etc..) The other 6 are for context (RSBN, Spreaker). If User:Tapered wants to talk about assuming good faith, someone should step up and suggest withdrawing this article from nomination for deletion, in light of the new articles that have been posted since last Thursday, the Breitbart article and today's Newsmax article are more than a trivial mention. A lot of clean up has been done on the article, references that were criticized as possibly being self-promotional have been removed.Cllgbksr (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of yet, no one without a stake in the article agrees with your assessment. Tapered (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

just had to get that final parting shot in didn't you... feel better? Cllgbksr (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've removed the sarcasm, yes. Tapered (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important update @What cat?: Dupree made Newsmax list today of "50 Most Influential African-American Republicans"[5]. Article/reference has been added to the WP article and is number one reference in lede.Cllgbksr (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Dupree was on MSNBC this morning, Stephanie Ruhle segment, link to video will be added to article once available. [6]Cllgbksr (talk) 17:30, 24 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Hillis

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

Not notable; minor party candidate for governor, etc., but fails WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and no other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost none of what very limited text exists can be substantiated. If editors can bring in additional cites, I'd reassess this stance. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable failed political candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for political office, even at the state gubernatorial or US senatorial levels, is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself. At some particularly high levels of office it can be enough for an article if the person can actually be sourced over WP:GNG for it (or for something else that would have cleared a different notability standard anyway), but it does not entitle a person to keep an article that says only that he existed and is sourced only to The Political Graveyard. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can locate much more substance and much more sourcing about him than this, but this as written simply isn't even close to getting him over the inclusion bar. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can not find many references on the internet which can support this page.Politekid (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:37, 23 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) 20:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of populated places in Japan

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

A list based on some unclear criteria; it's much shorter than List of cities in Japan and does not comprises even a third of the settlements listed in that list. XXN, 19:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - It is a completely unnecessary Fork of List of cities in Japan. In fact, it is literally nothing more than a copy/paste of the first portion of the List of Cities in Japan as it existed in 2011, when this article was created. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Unnecessary content fork. Ajf773 (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - based on the title, it appears to me that the creator's intent was to have a single list containing all of the municipalities within Japan. Currently the municipalities are spread over four different lists at (1) List of cities in Japan, (2) List of towns in Japan, (3) Special wards of Tokyo#List of special wards and (4) List of villages in Japan. Having a single list would match the contents of ja:日本の地方公共団体一覧 on the Japanese Wikipedia. However, the creator of this page walked away from it after doing about 2% of the work. Given this situation, I would like to ask the nominator and the other people who have already voted above (XXN, 64.183.45.226 and Ajf773) to consider whether a single list would be beneficial, or is the current situation spread over four separate pages sufficient? If such a list would serve a purpose, this page could be moved to Draft:List of municipalities in Japan so that it could be completed. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The town, city, village lists are all we need, I so no reason why we'd also need a list of all of them combined. In other words, I agree it's a CFORK. And if the criteria are broader than that, then we're in WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:00, 24 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 deleted under WP:CSD#G5. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Tanaka

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Has been deleted twice before by AfD but has been recreated once again. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, saying ___ fails ___ without giving any reason as to why is ludicrous. There is no reasoning or explanation of any failure in that statement you made, just that "she failed because I said so".

Second, I do not care what past things went on here. I could easily write a horrible article on anyone, get it deleted and that would be the end of it forever. I could also do it in the same format and then it would be deleted due to that. This is not a system that serves any other purpose than to get things deleted.

Reasons why she is WP:BIO:

1)'Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration She won the AVN award which immediately meets this goal AND SHE DOESN'T EVEN LIVE OR PERFORM IN AMERICA! There is no question or doubt on this one. If she does not pass this, any AVN award winner is immediately up for deletion.

2) Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or being a member of an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. She is one of the first Japanese porn actresses to make it in the West. Marcia Hase is the only other one I can really think of. If someone else can give me some names, I'd love to hear it. She won an AVN award, making her possibly one of the first Japanese to do so. She is one of the true first crossover stars and is really famous for her genre of busty girls. If she is not notable, no one is.

3)Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.' I sourced two TV appearances which were on TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV! and her Japanese page has more(https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitomi_(AV%E5%A5%B3%E5%84%AA)#.E5.87.BA.E6.BC.94). She has her own photobook which was sourced in the article and she was involved with the AVN awards.

Now, let's talk about [[WP:GNG]. Reasons why she is WP:GNG:

1) Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. - She has appeared in 430+ films. More films than most actors on this website. She has her own photobook that I sourced. She has a non-porn dvd that I sourced. She has been featured in 2 different television programs, amongst others that I couldn't find an internet source for from TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV!. Both are big television channels in Japan. I also provided sources from The Score Group, The New York Daily News and Playboy. This is not some girl off the street here.

2)'"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV!, The Score Group, AskMen,The New York Daily News and Playboy are reliable as is DMM, which does not allow user submitted content and comes straight from the companies.

3)"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. This was met.

4)'"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4] Playboy, TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV! are independent here. She's never even worked for playboy.

5)"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5] She was in over 430+ movies. If that isn't significant, I don't know what is. She's been featured in tv, she has her own photobook, etc.

I would also like to know how articles like Aki Tomosaki. Maki Hojo, Tina Yuzuki, Rin Aoki somehow pass both of these tests, but Hitomi Tanaka does not.

I am also going to add in an extra note that I done contributing to this site and its deletionist policies either way. This was not worth my time nor effort, and the very tiny "VIP club" here is not worth dealing with. I will be asking for deletion of any porn article from here on out if she does not meet requirements, as no one will, since what is being said that TV Tokyo, American newspapers like The New York Daily News,AskMen, Playboy and others are not reliable sources.

Even if you disagree with 1 of my points, overall, I do not see how this fails the test for WP:BIO and WP:GNG, especially for porn, which the main stream media in America does not cover and can't cover due to its mature content. The only way a pornstar is getting any coverage in America is if they aren't doing porn, have died or have had an incident....not for their actual work. It is almost impossible for a porn star to get on this site with the current guidelines in place, and the rules on here are very towards America, not Japan, where porn is run completely differently. Hitomi has clearly passed this test and I don't think whatever some random guy did on her page before should uphold forever.

ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We discussed several of these points before. First, claims of unique contributions to porn require attributions to independent reliable sources. Sources like Scoreland don't meet that standard. The AVN Award win came from a fan vote. The consensus in the previous AfD debate was that the award was not significant enough for PORNBIO. The sources in the new article are still of generally low quality. (Vendors and men's magazines are generally not reliable). Finally, reputable media generally shun pornography. That's why we have PORNBIO. The actor may be of general interest if significant achievements are acknowledged by a credible body of peers or critics. Initial impression: still not there. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new topic. WP:BIO does not state that it can't be fan-voted. This is the rule "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration". Nowhere does it say, it cannot be fan-voted, meaning you are incorrect. So we are establishing that TV Tokyo, SKY PerfecTV!, Livedoor, AskMen, The New York Daily News are all low quality, unreliable and insignifcant sources? If so, this needs to be addressed on this website immediately. I do not see how any porn article can ever be submitted on the site again, if we are invalidating 13 different sources here and if we've already admitted that the main stream news is never going to give any coverage to porn. ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. Negligible independent reliable sourcing if any. Deleted in September 2015 and October 2016, recreated with just enough unreliably sourced/trivial additional information to evade speedy deletion as a repost, but still has no legitimate assertion of notability or reliably sourced nontrivial biographical content. Despite the massively inaccurate wall-of-text above, there's really nothing new here. The subject has not won an AVN Award, but only an AVN Fan Award, a recent concoction that is neither particularly well-known no at all significant; even more telling, her "award" is for "Most Spectacular Boobs", and recent practice has consistently been that such body part awards do not meet PORNBIO requirements. Claimed Daily News coverage is no more than a single photo in a clickbat gallery without substantive text or an associated article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO does not state that it can't be fan-voted. This is the rule "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration". Nowhere does it say, it cannot be fan-voted, meaning you are incorrect. If you would like to make an amendment to that rule, you will have to go through the formal process, as this is not supported.

SALT recreated with just enough unreliably sourced/trivial additional information to evade speedy deletion as a repost - Wikipedia needs sources. There is no information that should be put on here that cannot be sourced. Any info on here that should be sourced, should be deleted immediately.

What about the TV Tokyo, AskMen, Livedoor, SkyPerfectTV!, her photobook, her dvd's, coed.com and Refinery29 sources? Wikipedia needs to know that TV Tokyo and SkyPerfectTV! are not sources that can be used, meaning every television show ever aired on there is now not usable. Is her photobook also an unreliable source? With this, I believe every single Japanese Porn article on site is available for deletion, so I will seek to it that these are deleted.

Recap(Hullaballo Wolfowitz) has stated that - These sources are now unreliable, insignificant and should be removed from the site - The New York Daily News, Askmen, TV Tokyo, SkyPerfectTV, Any books, all dvd's about someone, Livedoor, Playboy, The Score Group, coed.com and Refinery29. Being in 430 films does not make you notable. Appearing on multiple TV shows does not make you notable. Winning an AVN award if fan voted, makes you not notable. Is this all correct?

ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as per above - No evidence of notability and the salting speaks for itself here, Anyway fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Lots of new content with this version. Very little of it is based on reliable sources. As I noted above, most of the references are low quality (vendors, film databases). The citations to reputable media outlets are trivial mentions and cast listings, not acceptable for establishing notability. The only substantial reference appears to be an interview/press release, a primary source. Still fails PORNBIO and GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty poor justification. Seems the main issue is not actually the article or its information inside, just the nature of the article. As I've said, if she is not notable, there is no way any Japanese actress can ever make it on this site. I do not believe a 10 volume encyclopedia endorsed by every newspaper would be suitable at this point.ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 01:06, 17 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) 20:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Call of the Weasel Clan

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

PRODed two articles for this band's albums, one was deleted, but this one had the PROD removed with the rationale that is was reviewed in Kerrang!. While there is a quote purporting to be from the magazine, there's no actual reference. The album isn't particularly notable, and only one minor review is actually cited, therefore it fails WP:NALBUM. Jellyman (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 18:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it wasn't hard to find a reference for the Kerrang quote, which I've added to the article, but I couldn't find any real coverage of the album and I'm not entirely convinced that the quote is accurate. It's not featured on other sites and I can't parse the grammar of "pure ska like Sick Of It All play hardcore". Mortee (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Didn't chart, and I'm unable to find enough coverage in third-party RS to make an argument for notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:40, 24 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. Sandstein 20:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural decay

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

As written, purely an opinion piece with no independent references (no references). If expanded with scholarly sources, could be merged into Social disorganization theory or other sociological topics. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced. WP:TNT. Too much work to rewrite, even it would be notable, someone will have to start over keeping WP:CITE/WP:V in mind. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's quasi-referenced. St. claires fire (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:SYNTH. The author has grouped a group of ideas from various articles, integrated by the chosen label of the author, in an attempt to create a Neologism. Integration = Synthesis = Delete. Tapered (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly referenced, mostly SYNTH. It's also POV: the narrative of cultural decay/civilization collapse is a hugely politicized one, not something we can treat as factual. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:48, 24 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) 20:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Street Railway

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

Completely duplicates information contained in other articles. Anmccaff (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The article was moved during this AFD to Seattle Municipal Street Railway. --do ncr am 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with expansion. The subject matter is notable and would be able to be covered with non-redundant information with a bit of research (which I was planning to do anyway). Sounder Bruce 18:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing this would describe as a proper name was a horsecar line, rapidly absorbed by the thing that became Seattle municipal. 3 cars, 10 men, 20 horses. Only notable as a stand-alone had it been a first, or an only. Anmccaff (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If title is wrong, it can be changed, but the article is about the entire streetcar network operated between 1884 and 1941, not only about the first horsecar line opened.--L9A8M (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article about that.Anmccaff (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what is? I have not found it, otherwise I would not create this article--L9A8M (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing an article for Seattle Municipal Street Railway [was a redlink, but "Seattle Street Railway" has been moved to there--do ncr am 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)] (which is what the municipal system was officially named). There's a coverage gap for pre-Metro transit history in Seattle, and this is one huge part of it. Sounder Bruce 19:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one now, but there are Stone and Webster, Seattle, Puget Power King County Metro, Transportation in Seattle...all of which contain, or should contain, this subject. Anmccaff (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They should contain mentions of the streetcar system, but they should not go into detail. An independent article would be able to have a more detailed history of the system, its routes, its influence on Seattle's growth and land use, and its decline and replacement (and long-standing effects and remnants). Sounder Bruce 21:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think while the article is in its infancy (or, for its current state, the abortus stage) keeping it in one of the obvious choices above and creating an article once it was big enough, and accurate enough, to demand one, would be much more sensible than flailing away at a misbegotten stub. Anmccaff (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outright deletion is a bit much, but I can see moving this back to draftspace and having multiple editors collaborate and expand it there to be a good option. Sounder Bruce 23:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That could work well also, yes. Anmccaff (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be allowed to grow. Why did the nominator only give it a couple of hours of life? Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as you can see above, it was created in error. Anmccaff (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It sounds like this can be expanded, but it should be expanded to show notability if it can be expanded. South Nashua (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. I think the article was developed during this AFD and that early criticisms above may no longer apply so much. It was moved from Seattle Street Railway to Seattle Municipal Street Railway during this AFD. --do ncr am 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The focus and content of the article has changed since it was nominated, and in it's current form it's notable. There is even an academic article about it (it's an old article, but scholarly and in a respected journal nonetheless). Fyddlestix (talk) 19:07, 24 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) 20:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjana Sanghi

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

Fails WP:ACTOR and is WP:TOSOON FITINDIA (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not acted in notable roles yet. Fails WP:ACTOR and WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 10:45, 25 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 redirected to National Highway 366 (India). No reason given for deletion, so I'll let the new redirect stand. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 19:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Highway 17A (India)(old Numbering)

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

naveenpf (talk) 17:33, 16 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 redirect to Standing in the Rain (John Paul Young song). (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Dance-Floor Hits Vol. 10

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

Non-notable compilation/EP released only in Germany. Zero coverage in any reliable sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no notability. Ajf773 (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Standing in the Rain". According to the Australian Charts Portal, here, the three-track EP version of the single was issued in 1988, it has a catalogue number ZYX 8-5630 and the same album cover seen in the infobox of this article. "Standing in the Rain" charted in Australia (No. 12) as well as Austria (No. 11), Belgium (No. 2), Germany (No. 4), and Netherlands (No. 3). There is no problem of notability there.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is part of series released 10 years after that song was a hit. The song may be notable, this release is not. Notability is not inherited. It would be like creating article for every budget-priced hits album simply because it contains well known songs. There is zero coverage on this EP. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why I'm arguing for a redirect. As this EP appeared 10 years later, I see it as an alternative release version of that single. Any useful content here can be transcluded to that article to leave behind a redirect.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)21:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - But there is no useful content. It was common practice to re-package singles year later under a brand (in this case Golden Dance Floor Hits, which Discogs lists at least 21 of these) containing two hit songs by an artist or one hit song by two different artists. These type of releases don't even deserve a redirect. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I dispute your contention that there was "no useful content", the fact that this EP had two extended versions of "Standing in the Rain" (one of which is an instrumental) does add useful information for the single's article. In fact, I've already moved this content to said article. A redirect helps non-expert readers of WP find out more about the single and its EP version. Your comments about discogs having another 21 versions of Golden Dance Floor Hits are not germane.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It actually adds zero useful information for the song's article to list a re-release of no consequence limited to a single country some ten years after the song's initial release and which received zero coverage in any reliable sources. Simply being released doesn't make something worthy of inclusion in a song's article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above, based on the above analysis. Aoziwe (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen witchcraft

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

Concerns were first raised about the validity of this article at the Talk Page in 2013. Nothing has happened since. This is, however, a clear candidate for deletion. On the first count, it is about a subject ("kitchen witchcraft") for which no WP:Reliable Sources appear to exist (no academic publications etc). Connected to this is the fact that it clearly fails to meet the notability guideline. Moreover, it also appears to be "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)" given that it is solely sourced to Ann Murphy-Hiscok's The Way of the Hedge Witch: Rituals and Spells for Hearth and me, an occult work that is non-RS. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 23:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 23:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem with the available sources are that they are not independent. The primary source, Murphy-Hiscock, is written from the standpoint of a practitioner. And that reference also includes a comment about Telesco, author of one of the "Further reading" sources, herself also a practitioner, according to Murphy-Hiscock.. A gScholar search seems to turn up scholarly references, but they are equally unpromising as to notability for Wikipedia's purposes, such as, for example, a well written historical survey which uses a Terry Pratchett quote as a source for "kitchen witchcraft." (No disrepect to the late Mr. Pratchett's body of excellent fictional works on witches, elves, trolls, goblins and more.) There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources per WP:SIGCOV. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not enough external references for this to exist on its own. I'm fine with a merge as a subsection within a general article on witchcraft, though. South Nashua (talk) 18:34, 20 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 keep. It's been several days and I'm closing per WP:SKCRIT. I just don't see a valid deletion rationale, here. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majestyy

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

privacty violation. artist request Phattums (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're claiming this may be a case of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE? If so, where is the request? Or is it that you are claiming to be him? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Knox

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for businesses. Most of the links given as sources seem to be passing mentions or press releases, which are not considered valid to establish notability. The article does little more than state that this company exists and describes what it has done. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 19 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – 🐱? (talk) ^{(ping me!)} 17:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David L. DeJarnette

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

Article's only source is on a statement near the bottom of the article. Said source is selfpublished. There are no other sources showing the notability of the person. – 🐱? (talk) ^{(ping me!)} 17:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@What cat?: Please consider the article David L. DeJarnette now that all references have been added. Sorry for the delay. ColtsPop (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@What cat?: Please look at David L. DeJarnette.````

@ColtsPop: Looks good to me. Nomination withdrawn. – 🐱? (talk) ^{(ping me!)} 17:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@What cat?: Thanks for reviewing it again.````

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kramerbooks & Afterwords

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

Fails WP:GNG Notable for one event, namely that Monica Lewinsky shopped there. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily meets WP:GNG (for instance, look at the Highbeam link above - search for Kramerbooks minus Afterwords). The article needs work, but it's received a lot of coverage besides the Lewinsky story, which was covered by numerous news organizations like The Washington Post, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, etc. Besides the Lewinksky story, additional articles include NYT, tons of WaPo pieces like this this, and this, The Guardian, U.S. News & World Report, The Boston Globe, Publisher's Weekly, etc. APK whisper in my ear 02:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- appears to be a local institution. I randomly clicked on one of the links provided by APK and got this: "IT'S HARD TO imagine Washington nightlife without Kramerbooks & Afterwords Cafe. Yet it was only 20 years ago that we somehow lived without it" (that was from 1996). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With coverage even in the UK's Guardian this is one case where a relatively small business can be notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A famous bookstore, and as others have already noted it has substantial coverage in both DC-based media and other major media, and not just about Lewinsky. Passes GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
snow keep no wp:before- you realize that the washpost references and reviews are in the hundreds? Brock-brac (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep After the recent expansion of the article by AgnosticPreachersKid, any questions about notability should be resolved. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:34, 21 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) 20:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-André Leblanc

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

NN player with ephemeral amateur career in the low minor leagues, no evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:NHOCKEY going away. Despite the creator's assertion, Leblanc never played for the Canadian national team, but instead skated in a single one-off exhibition tournament where a scratch team of Canadian amateurs and university players competed. Created by an editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations. Ravenswing 16:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 20 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) 20:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Falkland Islands national ice hockey team

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

Patently ridiculous article that almost verges on WP:HOAX. This "national team" is not recognized by the IIHF, it does not play other national squads, the article's linked to a DEK hockey team (a different sport altogether), and it completely lacks reliable sources. Created by an editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations. Ravenswing 16:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment The reason it links to a Dek hockey team, is because they are the same team there. The official site explains their story, has links from The Hockey House interviews, and pictures from when they played in an ice hockey tournament in Chile, which you can find coverage on if you look around. The "national teams of icehockey" site has a page dedicated to them, clearly not a hoax. That said, if appears to be more trivia than anything else to me.18abruce (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS, no evidence of notability under any guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No dedicated articles from reliable sources, only a mention on IIHS website for a tournament in Tierra del Fuego, Chile! Search tools yield nothing. Lacks notability. Tapered (talk) 05:50, 25 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) 20:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yushiroh Hirano

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

NN player, no evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:NHOCKEY going away. Created by an editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations, and with a recent spate of creating stubs (such as this one) for players competing on national teams that play far below the top pool at the Worlds/Olympics, the only level for which NHOCKEY accords presumptive notability. Ravenswing 16:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 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. Kurykh (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juma Al Dhaheri

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

NN player, no evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:NHOCKEY going away. Created by an editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations, and with a recent spate of creating stubs (such as this one) for players competing on national teams that play far below the top pool at the Worlds/Olympics, the only level for which NHOCKEY accords presumptive notability. Ravenswing 16:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 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. Kurykh (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaos Papadopoulos (ice hockey)

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

NN player with career in the low minor leagues, no evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:NHOCKEY going away. Created by an editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations, and with a recent spate of creating stubs (such as this one) for players competing on national teams that play far below the top pool at the Worlds/Olympics, the only level for which NHOCKEY accords presumptive notability. Ravenswing 16:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 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. Rlendog (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jorell Crisostomo

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

NN amateur youth player, no evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:NHOCKEY going away (presumptive notability is not given to U18 competitors, nor to those playing for national teams that do not compete in the top pool). Created by an editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations. Ravenswing 16:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely WP:TOOSOON. The Philippine national team hasn't played in a IHHF or IOC sanctioned event, only in open tournaments internationally (although they will play in the Asian Winter Games.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:19, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Hernandez

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

NN amateur youth player, no evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:NHOCKEY going away. Created by an editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations. Ravenswing 16:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. Rlendog (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:47, 23 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spook Cave

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

Not notable under Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features). No sources either. Bel-Shamharoth (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a search of Google Books indicates chapter-length coverage in a variety of publications, satisfying WP:GEOLAND's requirement of "information beyond statistics and coordinates" for named natural features. I've added one ref (being the one the fickle Google Gods saw fit to give me access to) that verified most of the article's existing content, and could be used for further expansion. Antepenultimate (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you to Antepenultimate for adding the ref and developing the article. It's a tourist attraction, which pretty much makes it notable (no need for angry notes that that is not literally the policy, for whatever reason). --do ncr am 23:15, 23 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) 20:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Hockey Association

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

NN organization unrecognized by the various sports' governing bodies. Substantive coverage in reliable, third-party independent sources not forthcoming. Created by an editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations. Ravenswing 16:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS, no evidence of notability under any guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSources cited not reliable. Search tools yield no mention at all, let alone in reliable sources. Fails notability. Delete. Tapered (talk) 06:25, 25 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) 19:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kiyaga

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

NN player with ephemeral career in the low minor leagues, no evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:NHOCKEY going away. Created by an editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations. Ravenswing 16:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article's sources not reliable. Search tools yield no mentions of any source, let alone a dedicated article from a reliable source. No notability. Delete. Tapered (talk) 06:28, 25 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) 20:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ingvar Jónsson (ice hockey)

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

NN player. Fails WP:NHOCKEY (no presumptive notability is given to national team players who do not play in the top pool), no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article allready mentioned that Ingvar has represented his country in an World Championship once. I have added an source that proves that he has been in 17 world championships. Ingvar qualifies under criteria 6 of WP:NHOCKEY: "Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship)".--Snaevar (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Erm ... that's addressed in the first sentence of my nomination: "no presumptive notability is given to national team players who do not play in the top pool." Criterion six refers only to the top pool, those teams actually competing for the world championship. Iceland has never competed in higher than the fourth pool at the WC, and has never been eligible to win the world championship. Ravenswing 06:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The quote "no presumptive notability..." is taken from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment, an essay. Essays are nothing more than just the opinion of an another editor on said subject. They do not have any votes and consensus behind them like guidelines and policies. They are in no way any form of guidelines that other editors should follow. Ironically, I could even reject that statement on the basis that it is not notable, since notability after all is intended to discourage writing of subjects that are only known or found to be interesting among an small group of people.--Snaevar (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Longstanding consensus is as I've outlined; Iceland has never competed for the World Championship, period. (Quite aside from anything else, as the author of both the NHOCKEY criteria and NHOCKEY/LA -- the latter being referenced in the former -- references to the one being "opinion" and the other being black-letter rules are amusing.) Ravenswing 18:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No non-routine articles found on this player (and even those are hard to find, Icelandic or otherwise). Irregardless of NHOCKEY, he fails GNG per those standards, as even in NSPORTS, passing GNG supersedes the minimum requirements of any NSPORTS requirements. And @Snaevar:, yes he played in a very low division World Championship, but not the Group A World Championship linked in NHOCKEY (there are dozens at different levels and age ranges, as well as non-IIHF tournaments). I believe the particular phrasing used in NHOCKEY was chosen to keep it less verbose and the essay was designed to fully explain how ice hockey coverage and quality is not equal across all countries. Perhaps the essay should have a section on what a top level senior national team is defined to as well? Yosemiter (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an ambiguous entry, and the hockey notability guidelines (from an essay) are sloppy and ambiguous (that word again). The link to the World Championship seems to indicate that only members of teams that reach the final 16 are notable, but the essay ought to state that unambiguously. Interestingly the Association Football criteria are that any player who's played in any top tier international is potentially notable. Ingvar was (sort of) the subject of an article in the IIHS publication for having represented Iceland many times. I'm not a hockey fan, but perhaps someone who is could clean up WP:N. Tapered (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tapered: The NHOCKEY guidelines are not from an essay, they are from Wikipedia:Notability (sports), a consensus based set of guidelines that presume notability. The essay in question is an addendum for addressing the unequal coverage and quality of hockey leagues across the world (which judging by the length of the essay, shows that listing said leagues in the NHOCKEY section would make it far longer than the NSPORTS sections) and currently has nothing to do senior national teams. Association Football is one of the most popular sports in world so any comparison in hockey is irrelevant in terms of notability and GNG. As for addressing the NHOCKEY clarity, the nominator here, Ravenswing, was likely the primary author on both NHOCKEY and the League Assessment. Yosemiter (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable hockey player. Only coverage I could find was from the IIHF article, but even that article is not really about him. Playing for Iceland is irrelevant, they have never come close to playing in anything "such as" the World Championship or the Olympics as criterion #6 indicates.18abruce (talk) 20:10, 25 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) 16:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Alvarstein

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

NN player who fails WP:NHOCKEY going away. A couple cute blog references to video clips certainly doesn't clear WP:ROUTINE, and doesn't provide the "substantive coverage" the GNG requires. Ravenswing 16:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: plays in the Norwegian First Division, the second level of ice hockey in Norway, and fails WP:NHOCKEY. Delete per policy. — Sam Sailor 01:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:ONEEVENT at best. Geschichte (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 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. slakr^\ talk / 01:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Klingspor Abrasives

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

Reference issues, promotional Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. Since en wiki doesn't have de:Klingspor (Unternehmen) (parent company), cannot consider merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting link there to CORPSPAM, but this is a company popular with writers writing to hobbyists. Unscintillating (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A key sentence for me in the article was, "The company is one of the four largest producers of coated abrasives in the world, among other companies Norton, 3M, and SIA Abrasives." I found that [Klingspor sandpaper] produced better search results. The North Carolina company is mentioned mixed with the related Klingspor affiliates (i.e, Klingspor Abrasives, Ltd), so the sources blur the lines; and this is reflected in the article. In addition to the repeated mentions on the other Google searches, Google scholar shows the 1994 Popular Mechanic 's review of the Klingspor Sanding Catalog listed on elibrary.ru, http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=2128411. Unscintillating (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear business listing and what's here is simply overall unconvincing and that's all we need for deleting, regardless if the company is "one of the significant"; while anyone would've considered this acceptable, our policies against advertising largely different and therefore are always non-negotiable against advertising. In fact, all my searches immediately found mere announcements and mentions. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the words "business listing" argued as a reason for deletion, but this is not a WP:DEL-REASON. At the RfD for WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing, the closer explained that, "Some [editors] were concerned that this redirect mis-characterises the policy it links to, in order to further their own editorial agenda." and "...there is disagreement as to whether 'business listing' is implied by the policy." The redirect was deleted, yet your !vote here is still using the words "business listing". Your explanation at the RfD was, " 'business listing' is in fact business directory". Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 15:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While not pure WP:CORPSPAM, close enough to warrant WP:TNT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Total differential time for the previous !vote was 48 seconds. Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable refs aside from Bloomberg fact sheet. Search tools produce nothing. Lacks notability. Delete. Tapered (talk) 05:08, 27 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 01:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Rouffaer

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

non-notable model and wrestler who fails WP:GNG. Competing in a diva search isn't enough to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 23:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage and no indication any SNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:50, 23 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) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria Top 20 (Soundcity Radio show)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. Should be deleted or merged to Soundcity Radio Network —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The radio show has not received independent coverage in reliable sources to warrant stand-alone inclusion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Versace. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:51, 24 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. Opinions are divided - in good faith, apparently - about whether this is a content fork of or a distinct topic from Irish indentured servants. I recommend further discussion about whether it is possible to reconcile these views editorially. Sandstein 20:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irish slaves myth

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

This article is an unnecessary (and possibly POV) WP:CFORK from Irish indentured servants. There is indeed a lot of debate over whether and how the treatment of Irish laborers in the Caribbean should be compared to the experiences of African slaves, but the debate is not as completely settled as this article implies. This academic encyclopedia, for example, contains a straightforward article on "Irish as Slaves in the Caribbean," while this academic book review asserts that there were "a few" Irish laborers who were "stricto sensu slaves."

So while it's correct that most historians reject the idea of "Irish slaves," not all of them do, and the subject needs a much more nuanced and detailed discussion than an article simply labeling the idea a "myth" can contain. Anyone who takes a serious look at the literature cited in Irish indentured servants can conclude that it's a bit more complicated than that, and that even scholars who reject the idea of "Irish slaves" have still compared the experiences of Irish in places like Barbados to those of slaves, and have largely not used the term "myth" to describe that comparison.

This article's references are also generally poor: too many blog posts, opinion pieces, etc. And some of the better quality ones (such as the Scientific American one) make it clear that "a more transparent discussion that highlights the nuances of this period" is whats needed here. Irish indentured servants is the correct place or that, where slave-indenture comparisons can be put in historical context and the (extensive) academic literature that doesn't use a "myth" framework can be cited. Article should be replaced with a redirect to this section of Irish indentured servants. Any salvageable content (which imo is very little) can be merged. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge ~~w/ no~~ redirect to keep history) This is effectivly a POVFORK Irish indentured servants. The term Irish Slave(s) Myth is not, based on GScholar, used in any academic papers so I question the term's use as a redirect. There is discussion of the 'myth of Irish slavery' as a right wing false equivalence strategy but this can and should be covered as part of the indentured servants article. Jbh ^Talk 15:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Debate shows it is a valid search term so I have no objection to redirecting it to Irish indentured servants. Last edited: Jbh ^Talk 16:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Redirect as content / potentially POV fork. I would advise all readers of this AfD to familiarize themselves with the discussions that have taken place regarding this page (Talk page discussion[7], Editor blocked for edit warring [8]), as well as recognize that the nominator is very involved in this whole topic. It's hard to be diplomatic and skirt around the topic, so I think it's best to put it simply: it's clear that this article was created as a POV fork. The sources are weak and I doubt the topic has any real academic legitimacy. Relevant content should of course be moved back to the Irish indentured servants article. Pishcal (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator neglected to mention that this article was created in October, so isn't a fork of anything. No content has been taken from IIS, so none can be moved back. Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't get hung up on the article(s) history - the point is that we've now had several attempts to spin Irish indentured servants as straight up slaves and - in the current article - an attempt to write an article about the "myth" of Irish slavery: both articles were favoring a strong (or at least uncompromising) POV on a subject that's actually quite contentious and complex.

Irish indentured servants was created so that wikipedia could have a neutral article at a neutral page name, which uses the highest quality possible sources to discuss the actual history of Irish labor in the Americas. It doesn't matter who created what page when - it's clear that that is where a discussion of both so-called "irish slavery" and the "Irish slave myth" belongs, where it can be balanced with a broader discussion what actual historians actually say about Irish labor in the caribbean. I found tons of academic literature that I am still working on expanding that article with - there are many more books and articles that can be used to expand it. Most of those sources don't say that "Irish slavery" was a thing, but neither do they talk about the "Irish slaves myth." Fyddlestix (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're being selective again. The myth exists, and it and the fact that it's propagated hard by racists are well documented by reliable sources. Trying to depict this article as the other side of the coin from the unsourceable warblings of Neo-Confederates is misleading at best. Irish indentured servants was created (i.e., moved from Irish slaves myth) by Claiomh Solais, who then sought to portray Holocaust denial as historical revisionism, as the article's history shows. I commend you for putting an end to that nonsense, but not for misleading people here as to how that article came about. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I question how/where I have "misled" anyone, but whatever, let's see what uninvolved editors think and not clutter up the AFD too much. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be brief. You gave reasons for the creation of IIS that turned out to be different from the creator's. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created this article in October. Last month it was quickly moved to Irish indentured servants after minimal discussion, with no move or merge request. After allowing a few weeks for discussion (see Talk:Irish slaves myth), today I restored the content from the original article, with some suggested revisions. If anything, Irish indentured servants is a fork of Irish slaves myth. See the history here: [9] Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pishcal, the article history is actually as outlined by Alfie Gandon immediately above. This article began as "Irish slaves myth" (so "POV fork" is a complete red herring!), discussed the myth of Irish slavery, then got moved out-of-process without a move or merge request to "Irish indentured servants" where the main thrust of the original article got slowly whittled down to a subsection. The original creator has since worked away in the background to improve the original article in terms of content, layout and sourcing (which is fine). The phenomenon of the spread of the myth of Irish slavery, and the phenomenon of Irish indentured servitude are two related but separate topics - each worthy of their own article. Can the article be improved? Certainly. Give it the opportunity to do so. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a reason that Irish slaves myth comes across as a POV fork of Irish indentured servants: the comparison of quality. It doesn't take an especially critical eye to see that Irish indentured servants is a better written, better sourced, more comprehensive and more neutral article. The "comparisons to slavery" section of Irish indentured servants is undoubtedly more comprehensive and more neutral than the Irish slaves myth article, and I don't see the need to separate the two topics: they're very intimately related. Pishcal (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which article came first is irrelevant, this one is the one that discusses a topic in a POV manner which should be covered in an existing NPOV article. Therefore it is the POVFORK and should be handled as such. Jbh ^Talk 18:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude, but would you care to elaborate on your reasoning Apollo The Logician? AFD is, afterall, not a vote. Pishcal (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same reasons hightlightedd by the person whonominated the article.Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Irish indentured servants. The two are not separate topics at all, it is a POV fork of the latter article, which the re-creator Alfie Gandon decided to set up after being unable to uphold what is essentially a pro-British and/or anti-Irish viewpoint on what is now the the Irish indentured servants article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel like "the irish were slaves [in USA]" has become a thing itself which people talk about. Having a page about it's ahistorically can educate people. Most of the Irish indentured servants article deals with the Carribean, not continental north America, which is what the "irish slaves" meme talks about. ____Ebelular (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While neither Rodriguez or Cohen seem to have studied the Irish case with the same depth as Akenson, et al, even their citations come with qualifications against easy categorisation of the Irish as slaves. Cohen's review of Monaghan clearly states Monahan denies the Irish were slaves; Cohen himself only goes as far as saying "There were a few who were stricto sensu slaves (though Monnahan denies this); most were semi-free workers who could not be sold or endowed and had to be freed [not from slavery but from their contracts] after their indentures expired." [10]. The section in Rodriguez (1997) was written by Kevin Brady, who like Cohen does not actually endorse the Irish as slaves. What Brady says is this: "Most of the Irish who were coerced into Caribbean servitude were not in the strictest sense, slaves. Although there were incidents when the normal terms of servitude were grievously violated, nothing like life-long servitude was expected of the Irish. Had this being written after 2008 (when 'the Irish were slaves' meme took off), Brady may not have so titled his section, or qualified it as "Irish as 'slaves' in the Caribbean".[11]. Irish in the Caribbean would have been both accurate and less open to wilful misinterpretaion. So even these historians reject the idea that the Irish were slaves. Keep in mind that none of the authors who dismiss the "Irish 'slaves' myth" ever deny the brutality of indenture or transportation - they examine and compare the experiences of Africans and Irish, and the evidence demonstrates those experiences were not identical because the Irish were not slaves. So calling them such is a myth, and again from evidence, not an Irish but an American racist myth. Thus it needs to be distinct from Irish indentured servants, though its hijacking should be referenced and/or linked at the former. Fergananim (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However none of that deals with the issue of this article being a POVFORK or why this material should not be addressed in the other article. Jbh ^Talk 21:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the exact nature of the POV also needs to be explicitly stated. The fork was created by Alfie Gandon as British Imperialist propaganda, trying to latch onto a separate American social liberal political narrative on race (as forwarded by organisations such as the SPLC) which the article employs as a fig leaf of plausible cover. It was created in a huff after more reliable sources, presented in the Irish indentured servitude article were found and a NPOV put across. The recent American discourse on the topic, is simply a subtopic of the historical Irish indentured servitude, with political motivated debates over the exact tautology of whether indentured servitude can be reasonably called slavery or not (and so belongs within that article).

@Alfie Gandon is a "British Imperialist propaganda"-spewing editor?? Quis separabit? 18:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence in the introduction is particularly important and reveals the Colonel Blimp-esque purpose of the fork - "the myth is also employed by Irish nationalists, both to highlight historical British oppression of Irish people and to obscure Irish involvement in the African slave trade." The hand is revealed; British imperialists = not so bad really and the historical (which nobody denies) deporting of Irish prisoners of war half the way around the world and forcing them into unpaid labour can be obsured under the term "myth" because, technically, they were not sold from one person to another as chatel. Just captives of the English government, leased out for free labour to English plantation owners. Evil "Irish nationalists" have no right to complain. And the last sentence about "Irish involvement in the African slave trade" is laugh out loud John Bull-shite, it is more do not look at the British Imperialist elephant in the room (which is the whole purpose of the article). I must have missed the history lesson where the various kingdoms of Gaelic Ireland set off on expeditions in ships, independent of England, to capture slaves from the Gold Coast. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Claíomh Solais -- before throwing shade on everybody else, didn't the Irish go slave hunting in Roman Britain (present-day England and Wales)? Of course, that's why it is the only country (I know of, anyway) to have kidnapped its own patron saint. Slavery is slavery. Granted, given the island's remoteness, they did not do it on as great a scale as other kingdoms, but the Scots/Dalriada (Irish septs fleeing the O'Neills) also invaded Caledonia (present-day Scotland) and largely extirpated the native Picts. I agree that "Irish involvement in the African slave trade" is likely untrue but I'll check further. Such a vigorously contested claim would not survive responsible editing, anyway, and would quickly be removed unless there are some reliable sources to back it up, which I doubt. Quis separabit? 18:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the habit of promoting British imperialist propaganda Claiomh Solais, and this article wasn't created in a huff after Irish indentured servants, but three months before it; a fact you ought to be familiar with, as you moved the former to the latter. The rest of your screed is as accurate as its first two sentences. You've missed more than one history lesson, it seems. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I question why it needs to be distinct from Irish indentured servants. It's already talked about pretty comprehensibly at Irish indentured servants#Comparisons to slavery, and as a stand alone article Irish slaves myth has nowhere near the same level of quality sources as Irish indentured servants, not to mention the POV issues. Pishcal (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - looking at the references, there does seem to be plenty of reliable sources talking about the myth as a separate thing from indentured servitude itself. There may be POV issues, but not so much as to justify drastic stub-ification or WP:TNT, in my opinion. I do have a couple suggestions: the references and body of the article mostly discuss a contemporary "myth", and so the lede should be less about the history and more about the contemporary issue. Then, I would have a context section linking to Irish indentured servants (currently the two articles do not link to each other). Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage people to look at the sources carefully - you'll find that the sources that talk about a "Irish slaves myth" are of generally poor quality, with most either written by or based on an interview with one person: Liam Hogan. He is described as a research librarian at Limerick City Library by most sources.

This is an article by Hogan on opendemocracy.net. Normally this is not a source we'd even use for a history article - certainly not to establish notability - and I'm not even sure it meets standards as a WP:RS, since it appears that pretty much anyone can publish on the site.
This is an interview with Hogan on the SLPC's "Hatewatch" blog.
This is a story on rawstory.org (again, like Opendemocracy, not something we'd normally consider a stellar source for imparting notability or hanging a historical article on). It appears to be based on an interview with Hogan.
This is an article by Hogan (with Laura McAtackney and Matthew C. Reilly) in a popular (not scholarly) history magazine - but notice that it does not discuss the "Irish slaves myth" at all - it's mentioned in the headline but not in the article itself, which takes a much more nuanced stance (I'm guessing due to McAtckney and Reilly's influence).
This is an op-ed opinion piece on the the blog, jezebel.com. Not a stellar source, and again, in large part based on an interview with Hogan.
These [12][13] are more low-quality news articles that basically regurgitate something Hogan has self-published on facebook, medium, and other social network-type sites.

I could go on but hopefully you get the point - the vast majority of the sources cited in the article are either written by Hogan or based on something he wrote, and are from low-quality cites like rawstory, opendemocracy, and jezebel. In other words, the article appears to place WP:UNDUE weight on the opinions and self-published writings of someone has not actually published any scholarly or peer-reviewed work on the subject, and is a librarian rather than a historian. By comparison, none of the peer-reviewed articles and books written by actual historians that are cited here (or in the other article) even mention an "Irish slaves myth" at all. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge or retitle. The sources are low quality and many are not reliable. There is a myth about, to be sure, but I think the title risks overselling it. We shouldn't veer into a counter-myth. Audrey Smedley, an African-American anthropologist, has no problem referring to "Irish slaves" in the Caribbean. Nini Rodgers suggests that the servant–slave distinction would have often been meaningless ("academic") in late 17th-century Barbados. The current sourcing is not of a high enough quality to support the broad contention made that there were absolutely no Irish slaves in the New World. (To explain my vote: the article should at least be retitled, and after pruning of non-RS it might just make sense to merge it. If there is to be no change of title and no improvement of source than it might as well be deleted: the myth, which is real, seems to be of recent vintage and its notability as such has not really been established.) Srnec (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the topic of the "Irish slavery" meme is being discussed by USA Today which is quite the mainstream source: article from Feb. 16, 2017. The interview is with "Mark Auslander, an anthropologist and director of the Museum of Culture and Environment at Central Washington University" so sufficiently RS (see also Ashley's Sack being discussed in the USA Today article). He states:

“There is a strange war on memory that’s going on right now, denying the facts of chattel slavery, or claiming to have learned on Facebook or social media that, say, Irish slavery was worse, that white people were enslaved as well,” he said. “Not true.”

This suggests to me that the "myth" indeed exists and is being noted by mainstream sources. Judging by how recent the article is, I'd say we can expect more. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "a librarian rather than a historian." Fyddlestix, a historian is a researcher who can demonstrate conclusions from evidence. Your job does not necessarily matter. While peer-review and academic qualifications are prefered, Hogan's method is sound and agrees with other historians such as Rogers, Akenson, Beckles, Walsh, et al, none of whom treat the Irish as slaves. Can you show where "Rodgers suggests that the servant–slave distinction would have often been meaningless ("academic") in late 17th-century Barbados."? Fergananim (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The passage I had in mind is in Nini Rodgers, "The Irish in the Caribbean 1641–1837: An Overview", Irish Migration Studies in Latin America 5, 3 (2007): 145–56, at 147: "These servants, who continue to haunt Irish memory as ‘white slaves’ ... were not slaves, but for those harassed by an uncaring master or overseer, subjected to unremunerated work under a hot sun and dying before their indenture was completed, the difference must have seemed academic." The time period is after the Barbadian code of 1660 laid down a colour line. It is perfectly reasonable to argue both that (a) some Irish indentured servants were for all practical purposes slaves and (b) this Irish slavery was very different from African chattel slavery. There have been many different kinds of slavery throughout history. Mamluks, for instance, were not even socially disadvantaged. I'm not going to argue the point myself because that would be OR and I don't really have an opinion (or care) whether any Irish could be reasonably called slaves in the New World. I agree with the nominator that that question is not so settled as to justify the current title. Srnec (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty straightforward issue of WP:WEIGHT. Sorry, but the self-published writings of a research librarian do not have equal weight with scholars who have published major, peer-reviewed works in the field. I'm glad you raised scholars like Beckles, because that's a perfect example of the problem with this article. You're right that he doesn't treat the Irish as slaves, but he does come pretty close: Beckles' scholarly, peer-reviewed work (described here as "path-breaking" and "seminal") suggests that some Irish servants were "temporary chattels" who were "kept in slavelike conditions" and states that "their condition was nearer slavery than freedom." So yes, he stops short of saying that they were slaves, but it is going to far the other way to suggest that Beckles would describe such comparisons as a "myth." He doesn't, and neither do any of the other scholars you mentioned. The real experts on this subject obviously shy away from that kind of oversimplification of the issue. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~In addition to the nomination itself, this is your third major additional contribution. Step away from the mic, maybe? ;-)~~ Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really fair to say - Fergananim asked him a direct question, and there should be no issue with any points or arguments brought up being fully discussed. Pishcal (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point - stricken. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- for reasons given above. Applodion (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. It seems we have some good material to work with here, though I believe not much indicates that "myth" is the best name. "Irish slaves controversy" or "Irish slavery debate" could be more suitable. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on the concerns over the quality of sources and the POV issues? Pishcal (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per User:Fergananim above. It's well-sourced and stands apart from the indentured servitude article - Alison ^❤ 07:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am nonplussed by Claíomh's remarks as it is not an Irish nationalist myth; it is overwhelmingly an American nationalist myth caused entirely by conditions in the USA, not Ireland. Likewise Fyddlestix's claim that the issue is "quite contentious and complex". Globalresearch.ca provides "alternative facts" [sic] rather than actual history. The author of the 2008 article, John Martin, appears to be a fiction or at least an alias as I have yet to see anything else by him though the website called him an "expert". Other authors cited who support the myth - Lawrence R. Kelleher (2001), Guy Nixon (2011) - are best described as novelists rather than historians, so use facts and history loosely. In contrast, all those cited against the myth (both accredited professional academics and mere scholarly librarians) have clearly done a great deal of research on the matter and reached the same conclusion - while brutalised, the Irish were not slaves. The only people pushing this as factual history have an agenda to 'prove' it, irrespective of evidence; those who are scholars of history reject it. Clearly this qualifies as a myth and has an existence quite distinct from indenture as it seeks to manipulate and distort its historical actuality with slavery. I query renaming it "controversy" or "debate" for these reasons. My vote to keep the article remains. Fergananim (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly (lest I get accused of bludgeoning again), you can't have read my comment here very carefully, as this is misrepresentation of my argument: my concern is not that any historians actually say "the Irish were slaves," it's that they don't call it a "myth," and treat the subject quite differently than this article does. Read this section of the other article and that should be obvious. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it, and some historians do call it a myth (see below, today's date). Fergananim (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a mention somewhere in the several articles on Ireland and involuntary labor to the sole actual chattel enslavement of Irish people, usually called Barbary slave trade? It peaks between ~ 1550 and 1680 or so, but continuing well into the 1800s on a reduced scale. Slaves were captured in slave raids on the Irish coast in places that include Baltimore, in addition, Irish-born sailors were captured while working in the Mediterranean and enslaved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irish indentured servants where this myth is placed in a context that makes it intelligible to users who come to us to look up information on this topic. Note that problematic assertions about Jewish involvement in the slave trade have been handled rather well by containing them within Jewish views on slavery. And also that the Snapple slave-ship myth died away, as this one, imho, is likely to do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's asserting Jewish involvement in the slave trade. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is, or should be, primarily about the use of the myth of Irish slavery for political ends. It's a different topic. — Jon C.^ॐ 18:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~ Merge/redirect with Irish indentured servants, given paucity and POV of sources. Quis separabit? 18:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty NPOV sources here. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any sources that use the term "Irish slave myth." while I accept that the far right may use Irish indentured servitude to trivialize slavery, I do not see a body of literature that discusses it. Also, the article seems to trivialize indentured servitude, which itself was an exploitative system. Indentured servants did not necessarily "voluntarily" enter into the relationship. Dependent children are one just one example. TFD (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See article for sources. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This is a blatant WP:POVFORK, with a highly non-neutral title that contradicts reliable sources. No way are we labeling any view (that is well-represented in RS) on this topic as a "myth". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other article's the fork. What view are you talking about? Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Irish indentured servants - or "Irish indentured servitude," depending on semantics preference. As far as I'm concerned, an "Irish slave trade" did not exist, none of the sources alleging such a trade existed are reliable, and that controversy can be better managed in a sub-section in an article on indentured servitude than a back-and-forth between the existence of an "Irish slave trade" page or an "Irish slave myth" page. It's also not quite a large enough myth to warrant its own page, as with Holocaust denial where there have been court cases fighting over the Holocaust's legacy. EricSpokane (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Irish slave trade. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is certainly a POV and WP:CFORK from Irish indentured servants. That's been shown. It's been mentioned that the sources aren't very diverse. They also do not include the canon of Caribbean, Irish or New World Slave Scholarship such as Dr. Beckles, as well as Nini Rodgers, Jenny Shaw, R. L Foster, Orlando Patterson, Eric Williams, Ellen Gouveia, the Bridenbaughs, Dr. Peter Wood, and a host of others. Omitting the canon, the sources bring nothing substantially new or revolutionary that would justify the omission. The sources here are mostly third and fourth hand sources such as popular publications, interviews or blogs which discuss foregone conclusions without actual recourse to contextualized source material. The topic is part of a specific debate about servitude and slavery concerning the Atlantic World that is already represented well in this section of Irish indentured servants At best the search for Irish slaves myth should redirect to the appropriate section of Irish indentured servants and as suggested, any salvageable content that is not POV can be merged. Robbie.johnson (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite's been shown, and Nini's already here. You're welcome to bring the others. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an assertion, and not a demonstration. Nini Rodgers is barely paraphrased in the article. Your stated point is that the article is about the Weaponization of the discourse in American Politics. Nini Rodgers book does not discuss the weaponization of the discourse in American Politics. None of your academic sources do. And as a source for academic critique, involving myths and racist bait Rodgers barely mentions O'Callaghan's book at all. There are 2 mentions in the book in question. And it's the weakest part of Rodgers' book. Robbie.johnson (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I saw Hilary Beckles around too. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irish slaves myth does not contain a citation from Hilary McDonald Beckles' work. Robbie.johnson (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there seems to be a strong perception here that the Irish slaves myth solely concerns itself with an airy debate on how slavery is exactly defined. That's not the case; it also involves wild exaggeration of the numbers of Irish transported prisoners ("slaves"), an ahistorical insistence that they were treated worse than African slaves, and portrayals of a mulatto-breeding program that are pure racist-bait. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well put.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's your Point of View Alfie, and that's reflected in the Article, but not the historical discourse, which is why the article is up for deletion. The entire historical phenomenon represents more of a meme than a myth. If the article was sourced properly it would reflect that, but it would still belong over with Irish indentured servants, and not on its own. The definition of slavery is actually crucial in terms of the debates on unfree labour, because slavery is a polysemous word and also because it existed in different forms contemporaneously throughout the Atlantic world. That's not "airy." It's just proper cultural historical analysis and classification. Robbie.johnson (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to support the idea of a redirect to Irish indentured servants as the best way to curb the tendency that this article has towards pushing a problematic brand of historical revision that "involves wild exaggeration of the numbers of Irish transported prisoners ("slaves"), an ahistorical insistence that they were treated worse than African slaves, and portrayals of a mulatto-breeding program that are pure racist-bait."E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was answering Alfie and didn't make that clear. My apologies. Robbie.johnson (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Robbie's talking to me, EM. Robbie, I don't know what you're referring to when you say "The entire historical phenomenon". I assure you the article's well sourced, and you're welcome to join the various debates about sources on the talk page. I've no problem with "proper cultural historical analysis and classification" of the definition of slavery, but my point remains; the main thrust of this article is the weaponisation of aspects of that analysis in the service of white supremacism. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Alfie, the entire historical phenomenon of Labour in the Atlantic World is one phenomenon, and the most germane here. That got lost in my original edit of my comment. Apologies. The article is sadly not well sourced, or well written, and it's a fork. I've read it, and as I mentioned it ignores canon in favour of blogosphere and opinion pieces. It's sources are based on the first and most accesible google results and we can all see that. There are a lot of sources, they simply aren't very in depth sources. That's not "well sourced" and there's not much of a debate to be had when we throw in WP:WEIGHT. And when it does touch on canon, it does so without recourse to context. Such as when it paraphrases Nini Rodgers on O'Callaghan. You call that "Rodgers is in there." That's ridiculous. There are other statements Rodgers has written that are far more nuanced that have been quoted above. Rodgers is not saying that the narrative of Irish labour in the Caribbean has been weaponized in the service of white supremacism. That's not in the paraphrase or anywhere in her book. That's poor sourcing. Aside from the poor sourcing, The article is a fork from Irish indentured servants that hyper emphasizes what you are calling the weaponisation of aspects of that analysis in the service of white supremacism. This is the most apparent clue that you are right now unwilling to recognize that the article is your POV as opposed to an ecyclopedic WP:NPOV as required. Neutrality along those lines isn't up for debate. NPOV = representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.This first sentence from this section of Irish indentured servants is a great example of NPOV, it lays out the information, recognizes there's a debate, and allows the reader to see where the mainstream of the academy is sitting on the subject, while recognizing that there are polarized and controversial views as well. "Treatment of Irish indentured servants varied widely, and has been the subject of considerable historical debate. Comparisons between the treatment of Irish indentured servants - particularly in Barbados - and the treatment of African slaves have been especially controversial. While most recent academic studies have been careful not to equate indentured servitude with chattel slavery, some historians have nonetheless drawn close comparisons between these two labor systems, and other writers have sometimes conflated them." That's NPOV. Irish slaves myth is not NPOV. And even if it were, then it would then resemble Irish indentured servants so much that it would be redundant. And you would no longer be satisfied with it in any case, because you want to point out the weaponization of the Irish slaves narrative in the service of white supremacism. That's your WP:POV from WP:OR and original research is also against the guidelines. That is why the article is a clear delete and redirect. You're pretty zealous, and I can respect that, but this in an encyclopedia, not a political platform. Robbie.johnson (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This topic is as much about the modern idea/meme that "The Irish were slaves too!", rather than what exactly happened a few hundred years ago. ____ Ebelular (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Granted but notwithstanding. It's not a new or exclusively modern phenomenon. Nini Rodgers, quoted but obviously not actually read, puts it in Page 2 of Ireland, slavery and anti-slavery. 1612-1865, referencing centuries olf blurry legends of white slavery under Cromwell. Here is an editorial from 1989 in the NYT. Here is a reply to it. It's a perfect pre mass internet example of the back and forth on the conditions of the Irish in the Atlantic World. And the discussion about what happened, exactly what happened a few hundred years ago, cannot be separated from exactly what happened a few hundred years ago. The events and discourse on the events belong together. The section some of us are suggesting we redirect to, already exists at Irish indentured servants and has This section which is dedicated to the comparison of Irish indentured servants to slavery. So you're right. There is a discussion and comparison about the Irish' treatment in the Atlantic world. But that discussion ranges nuanced to controversial. And it's covered, according to guidelines over at Irish indentured servants. Irish slaves myth is hyper focused on the extreme and doesn't meet the guidelines. That's why Irish slaves myth is a fork. Robbie.johnson (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding Fyddlestix's above comments (Most of those sources don't say that "Irish slavery" was a thing, but neither do they talk about the "Irish slaves myth./By comparison, none of the peer-reviewed articles and books written by actual historians that are cited here (or in the other article) even mention an "Irish slaves myth" at all.) - the term "myth" is used; for example "The myth of Scottish slaves", by University of Glasgow's Dr. Stephen Mullen (2016) [14] (which furthermore uses these phrases - "the ‘white slaves’ myth", "the myth of the Irish slaves", "the Irish slaves myth"), while this [15] deals with the same issue. The phrase The 'Irish slaves' myth heads a subsection for pages 179-181 in Martyn's The Tribes of Galway 1124-1642 (2016) [16] which deals explicitly with the modern myth and actual Irish indenture. "Slavery myths debunked" by Jamelle Bouie and Rebecca Onion also discusses this and uses the terms [17]. Hogan says "myth" here [18]. Lastly, Akenson addresses this very subject in endnotes of this book [19]. The work of Mullen, Martyn, Akenson, are peer-reviewed. Fergananim (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Concerning Fyddlestix's and Claíomh's disbelief of Irish involvement in the African slave trade, please read an article on the subject by Dr. Nini Rodgers, published in History Ireland, [20]. Actual history is frequently less than edifying from nationalist PoVs because it deals not with what we wish happened, but what actually happened. Fergananim (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I ever did question Irish involvement in the slave trade, although I may have complained that someone used that source synthetically somewhere. As for the sources you linked: Martyn is a non-notable local historian whose book is self-published. It's not even a WP:RS. The rest are blogs/low-quality news sources (eg, the slate piece, whose writers clearly just googled the topic, found Hogan's (again, self-published) writing, and summarized it. If, as you say, Akenson mentions it in passing in a footnote that's not really helping establish notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which still leaves us with Dr. Stephen Mullen ([21] and [22]) who is an academic historian at Univeristy of Glasgow, who endorses Hogan's work. Fergananim (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is a third-party summary of a conference paper but the second one is decent. I'd draw attention to the last paragraph where he talks about the importance of using "representative materials" and making sure that they are "appropriately contextualized" though. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're at the point where we are splitting hairs and diverging onto other topics, so its time to put this to a vote and be done with it. Fergananim (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of a smerge (selective merge), seems the best option here. Not convinced that this topic requires its own article. SecretName101 (talk) 18:39, 24 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:NICK TRUE.CY

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

Not a notable singer, quick Google search only results in a SoundCloud entry, which is unreliable in itself as it allows anyone to upload. Article was also created by user of the same name, implying an autobiography about a non-notable singer. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but really procedural close). There's a warning above the template on User:NICK TRUE.CY to point out that user page deletions should go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion rather than AfD. That said, from this page, it looks like this should be deleted. Mortee (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually attempting to close this and open as a MfD when I noticed my mistake, but it edit conflicted. I'm going to close it now, so anyone else can wait for an MfD.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Godfrey (record producer)

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

Previous AfD under a different heading (see here) decided on a redirect. AfC was declined numerous times after which the editor moved the article to the mainspace himself. No clear indication of notability outside of the band. Redirect as per the previous AfD. Karst (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfC was declined due to referencing issues such as using Discogs and other Wiki articles as references. This has been resolved. The subject is notable for his influence in the DJ and production community. I believe he warrants a seperate page from Morcheeba due to work with other notable musicians and appearences on notable television programmes Samfov (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note the significant wording re: notability criteria: "...musicians or ensembles may be notable..." To meet any one of the criteria is not an automatic qualifier for a wikipedia article. The merit of references need to be assessed. What I'm seeing here is, yes, this subject has a separate career outside Morcheeba, but is lacking in proof that it is significant enough to merit independent notability. Listings of credits, name checks, and asserting notability by association are not enough. If this subject is indeed an influential person in the DJ and production community there needs to be a significant number of independent, third party articles that state as much, rather than the usual fluffy music web/blogs. What we're left with here is the flawed argument that a subject is worthy for existence. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only reliable source cited is AllMusic, but no dedicated article. The search tools produce no ref except the article in question. Fails notability, ergo de-lete. Tapered (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable music producer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 23 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Schirman

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

Non-notable person. XXN, 20:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- see for example this coverage in Ladies in the Laboratory IV: Imperial Russia's Women in Science, 1800-1900. A woman scientist of 19th century were few and far between. More sources are likely to exist in Russian. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the hope that someone will be able to improve this. I struggled in writing Vera Danchakoff and I confirm what K.e.coffman says. In these situations verifiability is more important that what we unfortunately call "notability". Thincat (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per K.e.coffman. Hmlarson (talk) 02:29, 24 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 Mayo Clinic Center for Innovation. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPARC Innovation Program

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

Kind of spammy and insufficient references to support notability Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep WP:NPASR~~ No WP:DEL-REASONs have been identified. Notability has no content requirements. Unscintillating (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"insufficient references to support notability" doesn't count? Fyddlestix (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, see WP:N#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Unscintillating (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per evidence provided by Fyddlestix. Unscintillating (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to this section of the Mayo Clinic Center for Innovation article. The SPARC program was re-named the "Design Research Studio" (see this source), and there is already a small section on it there. Under that name, I find some brief/passing mentions in RS that are certainly complimentary, but which don't look to cover the subject in sufficient depth to establish notability for a separate article. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not enough in-depth coverage to support the notability requirement for a standalone article, but enough to expand the current section on the Mayo Clinic Center for Innovation article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:05, 26 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Arora (physician)

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

Not seeing enough independent coverage to support notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as clear satisfaction of WP:PROF, with which we judge and base these articles; to quote, "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education"; any concerns, by far, are trivial. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- in addition to the PROF SNG, GNG is also likely met and the subject's many accomplishments check out. See for example:

Project ECHO® (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes), a technology-enabled collaborative learning model originally developed by Sanjeev Arora, a physician at the University of New Mexico, to train primary care clinicians in rural communities to treat patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. (link).

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's a distinguished professor, which WP:SCHOLAR specifically lists as something that puts individuals over the notability threshold. Not much more to discuss... Fyddlestix (talk) 18:29, 24 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) 20:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Laukhin

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

Lack of notability. Fails both NMUSICIAN and GNG. XXN, 18:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the article is well referenced and I believe it's an acceptable stub at this point. More sources likely exist in Russian. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. 121.218.59.88 (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 16 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) 04:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Bologna Law Review

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation too soon. Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - Transwiki to Wikiversity. Michael Ten (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per nominatior. Denarivs (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Bologna per NJOURNALS - "Dealing with non-notable journals". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Bologna See WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. See also, WP:BEFORE A1, C1, and C4. Unscintillating (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To those !voting "merge" or "transwiki", please note that there is not a single independent source for this journal (two references are to the journal's own website, the third is a brief mention in the university's magazine. --Randykitty (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:V#Notability. As for Transwiki, I could use some wikilinks so that I know what that is. Unscintillating (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But not everything that's verifiable needs to be in articles, otherwise each and every article would be swamped with trivia. As for "transwiki", it means moving the content to a different Wikimedia project, in this case Wikiversity. --Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really use the word "trivia" in this context, this is an issue of WP:DUE. Raising spectres ("some object or source of terror or dread") of "swamped" is sensationalism. Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not nearly enough independent coverage to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now that Transwiki is being discussed, I cannot see the usefulness of transferring this to different Wikimedia project. This journal is new. If it had some sort of track record of producing impactful articles I could see doing that. I am going to stay with merge to the University of Bologna article because it seems to be part of their academic program in the field of law. I am satisfied that it is University of Bologna affiliated. I think, in general, that merging is best considered on a case by case basis. In this instance, this seems to be a scholarly endeavor, and probably helpful to the law students who participate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But we only have the journal itself as a source. WP:V#Notability cited above says that in the absence of third-party sources we should not have an article on a subject. It doesn't say: just move material without reliable third-party sources to another article... --Randykitty (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Google scholar is finding articles from the review. (2) Once the article is merged, it becomes a redirect, at which point it is University of Bologna that must satisfy WP:V#Notability. Unscintillating (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1/ Google Scholar indexes all and every journal it can find, no matter whether obscure, notable, or even predatory. Just like Google aims to index everything on the web (which is why Ghits do not put any weight in the scale at AfD). 2/ My point above was: do you intend to add any info that is on the university website or related websites to the article on the university? If no, what makes you select this for inclusion and other information not? --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinions about Google scholar have no weight here. WP:BEFORE D1 says to check Google scholar for academic topics. How did you miss this? Unscintillating (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for your demands as to how this is to be merged, had you merged the article yourself instead of bringing it to AfD, then you wouldn't have that interaction. Unscintillating (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just an "opinion" about GScholar. Our own article (Google Scholar) mentions the fact that it strives to complete coverage. And just like BEFORE#D1 recommends to check Google, WP:GHITS warns that GHITS in themselves don't confer notability. Of course I check GScholar before taking a journal to AFD. NOT to see whether it is listed (because any journal that has a web presence is listed), but to see whether any of its articles have been noted (i.e. cited). If you look carefully, GScholar lists several articles that have been published in this journal, but not a single article has been cited even once. In all my years of experience with GScholar, this is something I have never seen before (usually there are at least a few citations from the journal to itself). As for your point about merging, I don't doubt for a second that the current article can be copy-pasted into the university article, but that was not my point. My point is that there's a lot of information on the university website and related sites. Given the verifiability of that info, do you propose to include all of that in that article? --Randykitty (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing now is filibustering, although I don't know why. If you don't know how to do a merge or don't want to be involved, others will do it. Unscintillating (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filibustering? Says the person who replies to reasonable arguments by evasion and not answering the questions that I pose. You're misinterpreting things and I'm just trying to explain them. That you don't want to hear anything is your problem. --Randykitty (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And let be for a while. Poster child for WP:TOOSOON. Less than one year old, in a field as vast as the LAW. Not enough time to develop any reputation to qualify for notability. Tapered (talk) 04:58, 27 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) 05:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark N. Hopkins

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

Minor filmmaker, with a biography filled with thinly sourced puffery. Calton | Talk 10:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Do Not Delete - Hopkins directed and produced the following documentary which now links back to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_in_Emergency Furthermore, the film has more than one page on the Doctors Without Borders site. This is one of them: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/living-emergency/ The reason that was given for the last deletion proposal ("PROD") is the following: "Minor filmmaker, with a biography filled with thinly sourced puffery." -- which is highly subjective, at best. I see that it's been repeated, above, I dare say the world might be a better place if we had more "minor filmmakers" like Mark Hopkins -- and "more…puffery" of the sort displayed on Hopkins' page. Someone needs to go on record as objecting to this "request for deletion" that -- quite frankly -- defies logic, IMVHO. (Wikipedia page for Hopkins' film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_in_Emergency This is how this "minor filmmaker"'s film was received: "Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 93% of 26 surveyed critics gave the film a positive review; the average rating was 7.2/10. The site's consensus reads: "An unflinching, inspiring look at amazing bravery and commitment, Living in Emergency disappoints only in leaving the viewer wanting more."[5] Metacritic rated it 76/100 based on fifteen reviews.[6] Ronnie Scheib of Variety wrote that the film captures the subjects "with rare candor and a refreshing lack of piety".[7] Sheri Linden of The Hollywood Reporter called it an "unforgettable chronicle" that "is a bracing blast of reality".[8] A. O. Scott of The New York Times wrote, "[T]he film, just like any good hospital television series, is really about the curious psychology of the medical profession."[9] -- from the film's Wikipedia page ]] Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article about the film, re: WP:ONEEVENT. The film is notable, but that notability isn't inherited. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Struck my !vote[reply]

Speedy Delete To fix this blatant hijack - how was this missed? See this diff here - an existing redirect was hijacked by PollHarrisBask to create this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Exemplo347: The redirect was created by the same user and it was an obvious mistake. Actually, I think he only created the above article to fix his error. --King Rk (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three years later? Exemplo347 (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @King Rk: You wrote: "...it was an obvious mistake." Or, perhaps, it was a happy accident : )… I'd like to hear it from him -- PollHarrisBask -- though…because it would appear that he may have updated the content after creating the page, though I'll have to look more closely. Cheers. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I came to this page -- not as an editor -- but as someone who had recently seen "Living in Emergency". I wanted to know more about those involved in making the film and was quite happy to find the Hopkins' page, only to discover -- much to my surprise -- that it had been proposed for deletion (using the "PROD" option). I made some mods to what I think is a perfectly fine biography, deleted the "deletion" info, and hoped that would be the end of it. But here we are again. So while I focused on Hopkins' later film (above), he also produced or co-produced "Going Upriver" with George Butler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Butler_(filmmaker)). That folks seem so eager to dump this page is ill-advised/ill-considered -- IMVHO. And I dare say that there are others who might take issue with the following: "The film is notable, but that notability isn't inherited." (I'll have to get back to this; I'm not done here, but I don't know how much time I have to make a case…and it seems like few people are weighing in… I hope some others will take a look and comment.) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are valid reasons to keep this page, IMO. 1) A number of different pages link to Hopkins' page: Poverty in Africa, Doctors Without Borders, Living in Emergency, Going Upriver, and several others. WP:MANYLINKS 2) Hopkins has been the central filmmaker/producer in two notable documentary films: Living in Emergency and Going Upriver WP: 1E+. He has been involved in the making of several other well-known films, such as A Civil Action, The Truman Show, Angela's Ashes, Shaft, and Wonder Boys, among others. WP: MULT. 3) There are other sources and short films to be considered and worked into the body of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_N._Hopkins These include newer short documentaries -- one of which has been used by the World Bank with regard to addressing poverty in Africa ("An Africa That Can Feed Africa"). Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several independent WP:RS citations give him more than passing mention; including one in the New York Times. Narky Blert (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I located four sources via Google. The first is an interview with Documentary.org; typically I think we use some caution with interviews as its direct from the subject. Next, the NYT feature is pretty lengthy, but is mostly about the film rather than the man (though he does get a few paragraphs of backstory near the end of the feature). Finally, I found a blog post on HuffPo, but it's by Hopkins himself, so we can't consider that a WP:RS. Fourth and final source located is another interview with Hopkins by NPR. I'm on the fence about using interviews to determine notability, so I'm not putting in a !vote, but I thought I'd leave those here for others to evaluate. Ultimately I think we may be looking at a case where the doc is notable but its maker isn't. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding: "Ultimately I think we may be looking at a case where the doc is notable but its maker isn't." With all due respect, how is that even possible??? Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, notability is determined by the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If third-party coverage concerns the film rather than the filmmaker, it's perfectly possible for the film to be notable per our standards while the filmmaker is not. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but thanks for the explanation. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 15:59, 16 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 // 12:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the documentary might have marginal notability (not saying it does, as I didn't research it), this filmmaker does not have enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: His work is not limited to the one film/documentary that you "didn't research"… One of his other films -- also highlighted on his page -- is "Going Upriver: The Long Road of John Kerry": https://www.nytimes.com/video/movies/100000003328148/going-upriver-the-long-war-of-john-kerry.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/01/movies/vietnam-and-kerry-fighting-the-war-then-opposing-it.html -- co-produced by Butler and Hopkins) Anyway, I've already weighed in, above. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep = appears to meet WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — notability only inherited from film. This interview source, cited in the article, is good and all, but most everything else is just about the work. As far as "numerous awards," it received only one: from a relatively hole-in-the-wall organization. Either way, that's the film, not the person. --slakr^\ talk / 02:08, 28 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) 04:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eurock

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

I couldn't verify that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the eight years since this article was created, many new links have become available. I have added several of them. Many more could be added, but the interested reader can quite easily discover them on his own. I fully understand how the availability of outside links can appear to equate to "notability" to a reader unfamiliar with the material, so I hope these additions satisfy the notability requirements.Rcarlberg (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't verify the assertions of the nomination. Since notability is defined outside Wikipedia, and notability is not a content guideline, there is not specifically a notability requirement that articles have sources. WP:Verifiability is a core content policy. Unscintillating (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unscintillating, I'm struggling to understand your comment. Did you think I was saying it had to have sources to be notable? Certainly not, although as you say, verifiability is important. From the information in the article plus my own searches on the topic, I concluded that it didn't meet the notability guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE complicated by usage of the same name by a geological association using it for conferences in Europe, but there is a dearth of verifiable sources for this subject. No indication meets any notability guidelines. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:05, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keba Jeremiah

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

The case for his notabilty appears to be a single interview with the Times of India - Can't see thet he verifiably passes MUSICBIO. Cabayi (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More sources about him can be found here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is just that the page isn't being updated or editing frequently else there are many reliable sources that can help expansion of article. Find more about Keba Jeremiah in Google News Arjann (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 16 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) 21:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Nayay Party

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

Fails GNG. No coverage ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found a few sources here [23] and here [24].FITINDIA (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mere formation of a political party and some activities in course of political debates cannot be considered notability, IMO. There have to be proper notable political activities, participation in elections and notable enough performance. ChunnuBhai (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an essentially non-functional party which never really did anything. Nothing from the news search suggests that the party is active let alone notable. I fail to see any substantial work done by the party even right after its formation and it seems that the news coverage of the party from that time is almost non-existent. I was also unable to find a mention in the list of Registered Unrecognised Parties by the Election Commission of India. — Yash^talk stalk 09:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Per Yash!.Winged Blades^Godric 17:18, 21 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. Those citing WP:MUSIC appear to accurately reflect our notability guidelines. Arguments citing that someone is notable for merely being signed to a major label (and/or that they've released a single album via that signing) does not accurately reflect our notability guidelines. Similarly, being certain that the person will eventually meet the guideline also fails our crystal-ball policy. Issues surrounding the guideline itself and improvements thereto should be addressed at the guideline's talk page. slakr^\ talk / 02:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheFatRat

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:Music - TheMagnificentist 16:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 16:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 16:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His Jackpot EP was released by one of the "big three music labels," Universal Music Group. He also released a single Splinter on Spinnin' Records. He has appeared on Axis, a radio show from DancingAstronaut, a music news outlet with over 100,000 SoundCloud followers. His remix of Diplo's "Set It Off" was featured on Mad Decent's Express Yourself Remix EP. His remix of Martin Solveig's "The Night Out" was released on Solveig's The Night Out EP alongside remixes from Madeon and A-Trak. He currently gains an average of over 2,500 subscribers and 500,000 views every day on YouTube, with 1.1 million subs and 189 million cummulative views. Having over 1 million subscribers makes his channel eligible for a Gold Play Button, although he seems to have either not requested it or not publicly mentioned it if he has received it. Clbsfn (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His music is on iHeartRadio and Pandora Radio. His remix of "If So" by Atlas Genius was released alongside remixes by Wild Cub, Magic Man, Goldroom, Pierce Fulton, St. Lucia, and Xaphoon Jones on the album So Electric: When It Was Now (The Remixes) released by Warner Bros. Records. Clbsfn (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the notability (music) page: "[must have] received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Billboard mentioned Büttner's tour in North America. Clbsfn (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Signed to major record labels. Per above. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - being signed to a major record label doesn't indicate notability. The musician would have to release 3 or more albums on one of the labels per WP:MUSICBIO. - TheMagnificentist 07:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the Notability (Music) page: "[must have] released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." His work has been released on two major record labels, Warner Bros. Records and Universal Music Group as well as two significant indepedent labels, Spinnin' Records and Mad Decent. His work has also been released on the labels Tasty Network and MrSuicideSheep, which are part of The District, a Canadian company which is also partnered with Monstercat, Trap Nation, Proximity, and other music labels. Clbsfn (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His work, as in EPs? They don't count as albums. LPs are albums not EPs. - TheMagnificentist 07:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Büttner's release of an EP on a major record label (Universal Music) is not a singular event. He will almost certainly release more content on the label or on other major labels, most likely leading to the point where he will have released two LPs on such labels. From WP:N - "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article." Also from WP:N - "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability." The case can be made that as TheFatRat releases more music, his popularity will increase, leading to more coverage in articles in significant websites or interviews with significant magazines. Furthermore, WP:Music does not specify the exact definition of the term "album." The word, when referring to music recordings, can be very flexible. From the article Album: While an album may contain as many or as few tracks as required, the criteria for the UK Albums Chart is that a recording counts as an "album" if it either has more than four tracks or lasts more than 25 minutes. Sometimes shorter albums are referred to as "mini-albums" or EPs. There are no formal rules against artists referring to their own releases under thirty minutes as "albums". The criteria for being an "album" in the article is only taken from the UK Albums Chart, whose guidelines an artist working in Germany is not obligated to follow. The US's most significant album chart, the Billboard 200, puts EPs on its list alongside albums. Clbsfn (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Büttner hasn't just released the Jackpot EP on a major record label. He also released the radio edit of his single "Monody" through Universal Music. (broadwayworld.com - TheFatRat Releases 'Monody' feat. Laura Brehm) Having released an official radio version of a single and an entire 4-track EP with Universal Music, it's safe to assume that he will release a full album with this label, if not multiple. Clbsfn (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also from WP:MUSICBIO: "[must have] become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." Büttner is certainly one of the most prominent musicians of the glitch-hop genre. Clbsfn (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls short of WP:MUSIC#5 by having zero albums. Falls short of #7 by lack of independent sourcing. Hit counts are nice but are not good enough by themselves. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass any of our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From WP:MUSICBIO: "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." This alone would qualify Büttner for an article, since he is one of the most prominent musicians in the genre glitch-hop. If you google "Thefatrat albums," his Jackpot EP will be brought up as an "album" by Google. The term album when used on WP:MUSICBIO is not specific, and can be used to refer to a music recording of any length. Büttner is signed on to Casablanca Records, a division of a major music label, alongside such artists as Martin Solveig, Tiësto, Sub Focus, and Stromae. He has already released a single (Monody Radio Edit) and an album (Jackpot) on this label. He will almost certainly release more albums on this label in the near future, bringing his total number of albums on a major music label (Universal Music Group) to two. Clbsfn (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:MUSICBIO: "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." The magazine Billboard covers his tour in this article. Clbsfn (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article from MLive mentions his performing at the Electric Forest Festival. The magazine DJMag has an article about his album Jackpot EP. This article describes him as a "pioneer of the gaming music genre." From WP:MUSICBIO: "Is cited by reliable sources as having established a tradition or school in a particular music genre." Clbsfn (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Provisional Keep Whoa! This article and nomination raise questions. First, WP:NM doesn't even mention YouTube, which seems quite an oversight in 2017. This gentleman has over a million subscribers and almost 200 million views. Address that! Further: is "Broadway World" a reliable source? This article is almost toast without it. The site is well done, the tone isn't overly promotional or breathless—it's well written. It would be a good idea to leave this article as it is, until and unless these issues are addressed and resolved. Tapered (talk) 04:38, 27 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BHK [email protected]

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

No sources to indicate notability. Search engine do not indicate much notability either. Clearly fails WP:NFILM. Coderzombie (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was a bit skeptical at first, but I found some reviews for the movie after doing some digging. They were pretty well buried under a bunk of junk hits - I think it was because the film's name is formed like an email address. Anywho, I did some general cleaning and sourcing so I think it should pass now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved to include reviews from reliable sources such as Times of India, now passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:01, 23 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 redirect to Mentors (band). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Whiskey

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

Completely irrelevant live album with no reliable sources whatsoever to establish notability. Not even an Allmusic review, and that website covers just about everything! TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band article. Non-notable live release without any real coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 20:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 16 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) 21:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Datameer

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

Clear advertising since both the information and sources confirm it's all either published or republished advertising including the supposedly best ones, which are then labeled as their "PR business section"; putting aside the obvious concerns, the article still overall has nothing convincing in our policies and the history shows clear signs of company involvements; when an article consistently stays an advertisement and is influenced by clear PR people, it's enough for any deletion. Source analysis:

1 is a business profile
2 is again
3 is a mere announcement
4 is a tech-focused blog
5 is a clearly labeled press release
6 is is another announcement
7 is same
8 is a funding business announcement
9 is is another tech-focused announcement
10 is a funding announcement in a PR republisher
11 is same, but this time republished elsewhere
12 is same as 10
13 is same as 10

14 is same as 10

Now, to cover searches, see where I found that:
first 10 are clear announcements and mentions
next 10 is same
next 10 is same
next 10 is same
So there's nothing to satisfy the 2 main factors here, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT which both state republished business announcements and PR are unacceptable and will not help for notability. WP:NOT then also states we're not a business webhost which the past SPAs suggest they used us as a clear one, see SPA 1, SPA 2, SPA 3, SPA 4, SPA 5, SPA 6, SPA 7 and that's also not counting the handful of IPs involved. Considering this, the article then contains the natural signs of it since the focused information all involves itself in the company's own published and republished words, not genuine independent coverage of it. SwisterTwister talk 19:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - see my rationale on talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Datameer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croakingtoad (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Datameer for the extensive rationale for the article's retention at this deletion discussion's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only really acceptable source is no.4, from the New York Times BITS section, which sometimes is a little more prone to making an article for a still not notable company than the main part of the newspaper. No. 11 is also from the NYT, but its a mere announcement. Substantial articles from the NYT go to show notability , but not announcements even if published there. The other material is either press releases or mentions. I am quite concerned also at the attempts to justify the new references all of which are mentions. This is enough to indicate that the editor responsible should avoid the article, as having too much COI to tell good references from bad. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to lean this way, as a bit too soon. They got some money and hired a marketing person, but not really notable yet in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 23:14, 24 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Johannson

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor, in a city not internationally prominent enough to hand its city councillors an WP:NPOL pass, and as a non-winning candidate for higher office. While consensus formerly accepted Winnipeg as a city that got its councillors into Wikipedia on the grounds that it was listed in the article on global city, that's more recently been deprecated because it was listed only in the "sufficiency" class of quasi-global cities and not as a true alpha, beta or gamma class world city. But what we have for sourcing here is not enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu; the article cites just four pieces of WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the type that would be expected to exist in the local media, six primary sources and a letter he wrote to the editor. That's simply not the kind of sourcing it takes to demonstrate a city councillor as more notable than the norm, which is the standard that Winnipeg's city councillors now have to meet. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This should be a SNOW, but based on how these issues are now approached I understand why it might be considered for deletion. In this instance, Johannson's position on the city council is to his disadvantage. If he were only a playwright and scholar, I doubt that this would even be considered. But in the enthusiasm for applying a tier-based distinction of cities, lots of entries are getting unfairly nominated. That he is a low level councilmember shouldn't be held against him; he meets GNG standards for all of his other work. That he was not as successful in politics as he was in other areas is not a reason to delete. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is a measure of sourcing, but there's exactly zero valid sourcing here for any of his work outside of politics. For example, a person does not get an automatic notability freebie as a writer just because his book has an ISBN number — a writer has to be the subject of reliable source coverage about his writing (e.g. book reviews, news articles about him winning a literary award, that kind of thing) to actually pass WP:AUTHOR. He does not get a free pass over GNG just because his book happens to have an ISBN number, because all books have an ISBN number — but the only sources present here for his writing of books are, guess what, the books' ISBN numbers. So no, there's no basis here for claiming that he passes GNG for his other work — if he passed GNG for his other work then it would never have been nominated for deletion, because passing GNG is a question of the quality of the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it exactly zero? There's links to his playwright profile in the entry right now. Sure, that's not the highest quality source, but its something. I bet there are more refs if we dig. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "playwright profile" is on the website of a professional organization which the playwrights with profiles on it are or were members of, so it's a primary source. That is, it can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after WP:GNG has already covered off, but it doesn't count as a data point toward the basic question of whether he clears a notability standard in the first place. The plays need to be sourceable to reliable source coverage before you can say the plays constitute notability as a writer — a primary source membership directory shows existence, not notability. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local politician without the level of sources to justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that level would be...? Unscintillating (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ROUTINE is an event guideline, and the topic here is a biography. Unscintillating (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of whether ROUTINE applies or not is not a question of whether the topic of the article is a person or an event; it applies to whether the context of what the sources are covering him for is "substantive coverage about him" or "glancing namecheck of his existence in coverage of events". That is, if a person gets his name into the local newspaper because of his involvement in events that would be expected to have garnered coverage in the local newspaper — such as local election campaigns — then that coverage does fall under ROUTINE. It's a question of the context in which the coverage exists, not just a question of whether he is personally an event or not.

Put another way, what we have here for reliable sourcing is not coverage about Johansson per se — it's coverage about events, in which Johannson gets namechecked because he was involved. But if he wasn't involved a virtually identical article about the event, different only in the sense that it wouldn't contain the phrase "Robert Johansson", would still have existed anyway. Covering local elections is the local media's job, so any candidate for any office could always be sourced to three or four pieces of local media coverage — the election campaigns here did not garner special coverage because Johansson was specifically involved in them, but would have garnered the same coverage regardless of who was or wasn't running. So ROUTINE does apply, because the coverage is fundamentally about the events rather than about Johansson. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a hoax, no one is arguing delete IAR. Sufficient GNG-satisfying local sources can be found in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It takes more than just local sources to get someone like this into Wikipedia. With no automatic pass by virtue of having held any WP:NPOL-passing political role, he has to be sourceable as more than just locally notable to pass GNG. If local sources were all it took, we would have to keep an article about everybody who ever got into her local newspaper three times for being president of her church bake sale committee. And no, the Globe and Mail citation does not prove that he's garnered more than local coverage; it's a letter to the editor with Johansson as its author, not a news article that a G&M journalist wrote about Johansson as a subject. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NPOL, and per Bearcat's reasoning, also fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per previous "delete," subject fails "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." As a local politician, didn't receive wide scale coverage per WP:NPOL. The search tools produce no mentions, let alone dedicated websites, articles, etc. Time to go. Tapered (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can the "keep" editors factually state that they're not residents of Winnipeg, Manitoba, and that they've never been residents of Winnipeg? Tapered (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete simply being a local councillor does not cut it. nor does his other achievements. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 27 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. Sandstein 20:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compostmodern

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

An advertorially-toned article on an unremarkable organisation. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is about the event by the organisation and is PR-like. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Confreence began in 2003, according to article, but this appears to also be a neologism, which led me to start by looking for it in JSOTR: came up empty. So I tried gNews, which let me down, producing a lot of hits on "postmodern" and a handful on this conference, and these were on design blogs. 10 hits, over half of them on newswire (a press release releasing service) But also this (The Artist as Eco-Architectural Iconoclast; Friedensreich Hundetwasser's `Compost-Modern' Crusade: [FINAL Edition]; Wise, Michael Z. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext); Washington, D.C. [Washington, D.C] 18 Nov 1990: k01. ) which is earlier than the date claimed, and turned out to be about Friedensreich Hundertwasser, not about this conference, although it does show where the term comes from (COI disclosure: I love his work) The remaining hits were 2 events listings in the West Bay events column of the San Francisco Chornicle, for the 2004 and 2006 conferences. Summing up: I can verify that this design conference happens. But it is not notable. Nor does this appear to be a notable neologism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article and reads like a press release. Kierzek (talk) 18:41, 24 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) 21:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of field and ice hockey

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

There is no need to have articles comparing any two sports. This can be adequately covered in the Hockey article. At the moment, it's empty anyway. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH if there was content, which there isn't. Editor's got something of a history of dubious hockey-related article creations (indeed, I just found another one on his recent contribution list). Ravenswing 15:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It might be possible to write a useful article on this subject, but there's nothing here. If somebody were to stand up and offer to work on this, I could support moving it to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 25 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. czar 00:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Live/Weekend Live schedule history

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:05, 9 February 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 February 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nominator says, WP:NOTTVGUIDE and the article imparts no useful info for a reader. DrStrauss talk 11:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both shows were pretty much used for unbranded spackle on the Fox News schedule. WP:NOTTVGUIDE definitely. Nate • (chatter) 04:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the presenters of the programs are of encyclopedic value, just not in their own article like this. The list of presenters at Fox News Live suffices. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTTVGUIDE, unsourced and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Ajf773 (talk) 05:11, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philkeyz

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

Nothing to suggest that this young man is notable by our standards, fails WP:ARTIST. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject hasn't been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of mentions come up with google search, but no dedicated articles, only trivial mentions as per example at WP:GNG. Fails notability. Tapered (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Darrow

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

Not seeing sufficient notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed per nom. Non-notable doctor, and no means to produce an article due to total lack of RS in existence, aside from this one news story in a CA county paper. -Delta13C (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now that the article has been hacked down to size, this decision seems easier. I am not so sure that the deletions were correct, but this is not my area of expertise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his actions and contributions as a medical doctor do not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant for notability.Politekid (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Politekid has been blocked as a sockpuppet.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No significant citations, editorial work, academic positions or awards that would pass WP:PROF. Though he has written multiple books, none of them have generated significant coverage compatible with a pass of WP:AUTHOR. It looks like he has written three posts for The Huffington Post, but even in 2009 when an SEO/social media consultant wrote this entry, I think that "regular contributions" was really a stretch. A previous version said he "discovered" prolotherapy, but he discovered it as an option for himself - he wasn't the discoverer of prolotherapy. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:52, 21 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) 21:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Burrows (filmmaker)

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

BLP with no RS. Promotional in tone —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 11:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb and one reference in a "newsletter" is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:36, 20 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) 21:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Songopoly

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

Non-notable. I can't find any sources, or I would have suggested a merge into Monopoly_(game)#Variants instead. This game hasn't been released yet, so it's almost certainly WP:TOOSOON at best. Adam9007 (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom.Winged Blades^Godric 09:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:37, 20 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 available argument for keep is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which doesn't address the concerns laid out in the nomination. Kurykh (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FabricLive.30

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

Fails WP:NALBUM Domdeparis (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a simple case of notability failure, as the nominator explained. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this article is not eligible for deletion, because it adds to a series of albums. This particular instance has even more sources and references than most other articles within this category. If you deleted this article, you might as well delete all the other ones. Robcuiper (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I totally agree with you the other albums are no more notable than this one. I shall add them to the deletion request. --Domdeparis (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:37, 20 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeIN Sports (MENA)

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

advertising The Banner talk 10:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes, these one-word deletion rationales from the nominator are not going to cut the mustard, I think. It's a regional -- i.e. international cable channel. Can't see why this wouldn't be inherently notable per WP:BROADCAST. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Top sports channel in this region. Come on Banner, you know this is a WP:BADFAITH and WP:POINTy nom; knock it off. Nate • (chatter) 04:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not willing to see advertising but accusing others of bad faith and pointy nomination is a easy way to let Wikipedia succumb to advertisers. With inaction the main culprit. The Banner talk 19:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment What are you going on about?! By your standards all television station/network articles would have to only be "(Network) is an (entity) broadcasting television programming...end". to comply with your definition of ADVERT. This is the main sports network in the Middle East and its WP:N is plain to see without elaboration. At this point provactive nominations like this are a net negative to the project and waste time and resources fixing actual ADVERT articles. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nice joke, but by far not the truth. The Banner talk 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Strong keep for similar reasons as already mentioned (notably WP:BCAST) and that I wrote at the BeIN Sports Australia AfD by the same nominator. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: easily meets criteria listed in WP:BCAST for notability. musimax. (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The one-word rationale for deletion is not convincing; no qualification is provided. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes I get the idea that people only look at the title of an article but not to the content. The Banner talk 16:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)|[reply]
Speedy keep - Article is not advertising, and even if it were AFD is not cleanup and this is clearly notable. Nomination was in bad faith. Smartyllama (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Another editor supporting advertising and promo by plain inactivity. That you need insults to express your point, is disappointing. The Banner talk 21:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user did not insult you, they simply pointed out their reasons for voting and backing it up with actual policy. You haven't demonstrated any rationale backed up by policy or consensus to support your nominations of nearly every BeIN article there is. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you better start reading this: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion The Banner talk 22:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. Perhaps you could read WP:BROADCAST which nearly every editor has suggested -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article does seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:BROADCAST.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 23 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. Creator blanked the page - it has been speedily deleted per G7. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zillion Technology

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

The assertions made in this article and on its purported website - "Bigshare Services (P) Ltd. which is amongst the top 5 Corporate Registrars & Share Transfer Agents in India. Its Clientele base Exceeds 400 Corporates and includes MNC’s, MF’s and Bluechip Corporates. - are without any substance. This would be a routine WP:A7/ WP:G11 deletion. However there are multiple competing additions to the article that suggest this may possibly be about other corporate entities of this or a similar name. WP:AFD is not for clean-up , but I'm WP:IAR-ing here. I'll edit the AfD rational to expand on my concerns. Shirt58 (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was tagged for G11, but author removed speedy tag. I am willing to delete via AFD as non-notable and highly promotional now that AFD has been tagged. Would qualify for G11. Any A7 credible claim of significance doesn't establish notabilility.Robert McClenon (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources. CLCStudent (talk) 19:50, 16 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. postdlf (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Playmates of 1995

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

This page has no sources and nothing noteworthy. Should be removed. Richterer11111 (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of sources for this article. Considering the very first edit Richterer11111 ever made was creating this AfD this feels WP:POINTy and not made in good faith. Justeditingtoday (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Contrary to your assertion, there are sources in the article (see the References section). I don't know what you mean by "nothing noteworthy", but I'm quite certain that it isn't a reason based on the deletion policy. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's sourced and these lists are common - see [25]. JohnInDC (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - though I suppose I have to acknowledge that the particular sources offered may not qualify as RS. This seems, ultimately, fixable though and not grounds for deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does have some sources, and several of the people in the list have articles. "Nothing noteworthy" straddles WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT - neither a reason to delete. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason advanced to disturb the compromise rather oainfully hammered out not so long ago. I do think it would be better to remove the clutterboxes, whose contents are either redundant to the text or poorly sourced, transient, and ultimately trivial. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information for multiple of the people listed there is inaccurate. I am the father of one of the people who is named there and said person was not featured in the magazine. How would you suggest addressing said issue if the information is inaccurate. The sources do not appear to be something which wikipedia sanctions and i do not have information which can say it is untrue, any more than i do not have information which says i am not a state senator. The information is simply inaccurate. 14:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiryucky (talk • contribs) — Amiryucky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Comment - NB, the prior commenter is a new account, and has only blanked some of these pages and commented here. Anyone who remembers the template message for this situation is welcome to replace my comment with it. JohnInDC (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- largely unsourced fancruft. Prior consensus does not mean that this could not or should not be revisited. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unsourced materials. This should be removed if sources arent better. 81.105.221.249 (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTE: I have recently heavily-edited the article under consideration here. I was able to find a number of decent references by doing just the most basic of searches on the subject of this Wikipedia article. The idea that a list article that contains at least six (half of the people mentioned in the whole list) notable persons (Melissa Deanne Holliday, Lisa Marie Scott, Stacy Sanches, Heidi Mark, Donna D'Errico & Alicia Rickter) isn't notable on its own is kind of a laughable argument on the face of it.

The article here has also apparently been recently vandalized by a number of apparent Single Purpose Accounts/IP editors which may have been operating as sock/meatpuppets. Expressing an opinion that basically boils down to I just don't like it isn't a valid argument at AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps six are noteable - and so then why include the other six on this page without sources? At the very least there needs to be major editing to comply with Wikipedia rules. Richterer11111 (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of the sections of this list article now has at least some citations, and I'm very confident (based on my own basic research so far) that the rest of the info (and likely even more info) in this list article can be reliably sourced in the future. AfD is not cleanup - please stop vandalizing the article. I'd personally also like to know what other Wikipedia accounts you are currently using - people don't just show up on Wikipedia and start AfDs on their first few edits. Guy1890 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deletion, Plenty of sources, Passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion. I would say WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so delete, but that's an invalid point. I'm just coming here because I apparently got myself accidentally involved in the edit war. I reverted once on Huggle than undid my own edit. I plan to stay far clear of this article and the discussion going forward. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 02:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it odd that this one particular year was singled out for such attention when we have Category:Playboy lists. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets §1 and §3 of WP:LISTPURP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a similar AfD, resulting in Keep, can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of 2014. JohnInDC (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This amounts to an invasion of privacy for non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can shed some light on why this specific year is singled out by new users and IP editors. One of the playmates (Miss June) hired a PR firm to do some cleaning up. Since this page ranks first page in Google for her name, they really want it gone. I know because I own a site that is also ranking high for her name and I was contacted too. Fluxlux (talk) 18:51, 19 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) 21:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simone de Gale

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

Does not meet WP:GNG in that she has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The creator of the page seems not to have read WP:NOTADVERTISING, as evidenced by the article subject's website listing Wikipedia under "Awards and Accreditations". Lincolnite (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - puffery of unnotable individual. Article creator trying to suppress afd discussion. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page - meets WP:GNG significant coverage in reliable and independent sources have been listed on the page. Checked WP:NOTADVERTISING, no listing of Wikipedia on website: "Awards and Accreditations". Expanded on "Early Life" and "Style". — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgePure (talk • contribs) 18:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Close discussion~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgePure (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

The user above (JudgePure) has, as of the time of writing, made a total of 31 edits to Wikipedia: 27 to Simone de Gale (including the unauthorized removal of the AfD template), 3 to this page (including blanking it) and 1 to their own user page (the blanking of an AfD template removal warning). It seems the user has a very keen interest in this particular subject, perhaps raising WP:COI questions.
This cached version of the Awards and Accreditations page of Simone de Gale's website clearly shows the Wikipedia logo present as recently as January 19 (and I can confirm that it was present on January 31, when I listed the article for deletion). Ms de Gale's website seems to have been edited since then to remove the reference. A cynic might link that action to JudgePure's statement above referencing "no listing of Wikipedia on website", adding fuel to COI concerns. Lincolnite (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User (Lincolnite) I am new to contributing to Wikipedia and its format, but can contribute where I like. No WP:COI here, just stating the facts. I have expanded Ms de Gale's page and the work is notable with scope in science and architecture.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Added reliable sources independent of the subject. Car4tea (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)(Blocked Sock)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lincolnite (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lincolnite (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lincolnite (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The refs provided are either routine biography pages or junky trade magazines. References are therefore not wide, independent and of high quality-- in fact they are of very low quality. Additionally, this person's claim to fame is that she a) has an architecture practice and b) invented a single material that resists blasts, both of which are fairly normal items without significant (Think The Guardian) sources to back them up. Without these significant references, the coverage is basically routine. The subject therefore does not meet WP:GNG. I did trim some of the advertorial language from the article, but it is still a thin article notability-wise. The closing admin might want to take notice of the red-linked SPAs above that seem to have a special interest in this page.198.58.162.176 (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC) 198.58.162.176 (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: The closing admin should be highly suspicious of the comments and edits made by the unsigned user 198.58.162.176 (talk) . This is a new account which was created seven days ago, yet still the user seems to be an expert on editing Wikipedia pages, perhaps with knowledge one could only gain over several years. Most of this person's contribution has been spent on editing the subject of this discussion. Is this a particular special interest in the IP user above to close this page? I have gone through and made additional contributions from reliable sources on the subject. The subject meets WP:GNG. The sources are UK national media and international organisations referring to the work of the subject. Car4tea1 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC) (Previously Car4tea)(Blocked Sock)[reply]

Commment wow, lots of gaslighting going on here! "Most of this person's contribution has been spent on editing the subject of this discussion." Sorry, false news-- are you maybe actually Donald trump? ! I have editided dozens of different articles, objectively and correctly. Car4tea is obviously the article subject, and has reverted the good edits I made to the article to bring it closer to Wikipedia standard. I am indeed 198.58.162.176, as it seems my router reset overnight. note that as 198.58.162.176, I had a diversity of editing interests. Let's also note that car4tea/Car4tea1 is likely the article subject, and has a singular editing interest. Have a nice day. 198.58.160.8 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::*Comment The only person gaslighting here is you! Clearly, you are abusing the Wikipedia website by deleting factual content which meets WP:GNG, which has been contributed by a number of persons. You have also accused me of being the subject of this discussion, which is entirely untrue. May be you have a strong connection with the person who added this topic to the AfD forum. Highly likely. This however is abuse of the subject and the facts of their work. This is not a website owned by you, where you can do whatever you want, it is owned by Wikipedia and you are abusing the system. The unsigned contributions should be immediately dismissed, as well as their vote, as this person has no intention of revealing their identity and is abusing the system. I, however, have edited a number of pages in a factual and helpful way. Car4tea1 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)(Blocked Sock)[reply]

Yeah, I can see that you have edited two different pages. I guess two different pages amounts to "several". About fifteen edits to Simone de Gale pages, and two small edits to another page. What you say is very inaccurate gaslighting. In any case, I am sure this page for a non-notable person will be deleted soon, so it's not much use edit warring or wasting our breath here. Only significant references will save this article, and they do not exist. 198.58.160.8 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Clearly, you are just an abusive person with no morals or decorum. Maybe if you revealed your identity, people would actually take you seriously. Why are you here anyway? I am certain the contributions I have made, along with other people will retain the subject's page, along with other pages I have edited.

Note to closing admin: Ignore all abusive actions taken by unsigned contributor with own personal agenda attached to this discussion.Car4tea1 (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)(Blocked Sock)[reply]

Comment From your contribs I see that you have edited three or four different pages total. Nice try (Simonne?). 198.58.160.8 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This person is crazy and clearly is obsessed with the subject of this discussion. All comments and contributions from this person should be ignored. It's a shame we can not verify their location. Car4tea1 (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Politekid (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Politekid has been blocked as a sockpuppet.[reply]
Sockpuppeting is very likely going on here. What could have been a routine discussion has turned into several editors vociferously supporting an article of quesitonable notability.198.58.160.8 (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Go away you abusive person, you can't even reveal your identity. You seem to be the only one going to lengths to delete this page with your new anonymous ID, as you can see, generally, no one is really that concerned. It's been listed for weeks! And a few people have contributed, including me, to improve the subject page, and all you are doing is insulting me and throwing accusations towards me. And you are the only one 'vociferously' trying to delete the page. Get a life. Car4tea1 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing does not constitute significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. Also note that a major contributor to the article (with few edits outside this subject) has tried to suppress the discussion on this page by striking out contributions from IP editors (whose arguments have exactly the same weight as anyone else's). --bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::You are a liar. I have edited numerous pages besides this page. I have been coaxed into an argument with an abusive anonymous IP user, hence the reason for striking out their comment. You will probably have noticed the IP user is a new and suspicious account, solely focused on this AfD discussion. And yes, if you check their references, they do meet WP:GNG Car4tea1 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)(Blocked Sock)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG not met. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needless conversation

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Socketpuppeting is very likely going on here. The user Lincolnite has become inactive since nominating this article for deletion. Yet, an unidentified new IP user, has vociferously argued with false analysis and deletion of reliable sources on the page, to delete the subject page. I have raised an investigation into the IP use. The IP user's tone and decorum has been a complete exaggeration, and indication of desperate acknowledgement to the detriment of the subject page. Almost acting with an obsession of the subject. I have checked the references on the subject page and they meet WP:GNG. The IP unsigned user has tried vociferously to delete and suppress these references on the subject page.Car4tea1 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've got your message, now knock it off and let the discussion run its course. Don't be disruptive. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:::Don't be rude to me user Exemplo347. Check your facts before you speak. How dare you tell me to knock it off. Who the hell are you? Do you think you own Wikipedia or something?Car4tea1 (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Blocked Sock[reply]

I'm not being rude - I'm trying to save you from yourself. If you want this article to be kept, the best thing you can do right now is spend your time improving the article instead of arguing with everyone who posts here. Drop the stick. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:::::This anonymous IP user is disgusting and an absolute disgrace. I have edited and added links to this page, and all this anonymous IP user has done is delete the references and edits. I have reported them anyway, as of course, this is their conflict of interest. And yes Exemplo347, you should improve the page also, instead of being quick to act.Car4tea1 (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Blocked Sock[reply]

You've had 19 days to improve the article so I'd hardly say I've been quick to act. I'm not going to argue with you - if you have an issue with a particular editor, take it up with them. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment, I'll come back to this later if I can: the notability of that award is important; I wonder if better sourcing for the award (here and in the linked article) wouldn't help the case. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If she had won the award, then maybe (if the award itself is notable) but she's on quite a full shortlist. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the Stephen Lawrence thing. As laudable as that trust is, it doesn't seem to have generated much coverage in the press. I'm going to have to go with delete. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage in third-party, independent sources. Seems like a bright person with lots of potential but it's WP:TOOSOON at this point. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely delete. This is not a well known, or reputable architect. Infact her own practice shows nearly no impressive self-run projects, let alone ones of interest (which are still not wiki worthy), let alone truly inspiring buildings. There are architects who have tremendous portfolios which are not on Wikipedia, this woman is clearly puffing herself up. Company accounts for her other company are not impressive and show little investment. Anyone can start a company. Delete.(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.210.78 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Wish Fairy Dance

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

Utterly promotional article about a commercial product. The best sources given are a puff piece in Huffington Post Style and a review in a beauty blog. The reflist is fleshed out with some trade press advertorials and references to the company's own press. Slashme (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the value of sources, I would say that the Fragrantica source is probably the most widely used when referencing perfumes (in USA), definitely better than the blog post. Regarding the puff piece, this speaks directly to the fascinating grip that something as simple as the mixture of aromas can have on society. The fact that the piece is so oulandishly loud (title is a bit intense, but there is substance) is testament to this cultural phenomenon in itself ironically. More sources added as well. Fashionista55 (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contest the deletion, fail to see how it fails on the charge that it is a promotional article in any way. It is quite objective throughout and I would refer participants to several other fashion houses whose fragrance collections are indeed a wonderful and niche part of Wikipedia (see: Glow by JLo, Chantilly (fragrance), Coco (perfume), L'eau d'Issey, Light Blue (fragrance) and Amarige amongst hundreds of others). Further sources now added but comparatively, this article is much better sourced and I would state specifically that there should not be any issue in citing a company's press per the wiki guidelines. Indeed it is extremely common and expected and I refer you to Chevrolet Volt for example which references General Motors variously. The study of fragrances, their compositions and the captivity they have on the human imagination is quite literally an entire area of expertise requiring much research, knowledge and insight. The area of study is completely fascinating and the collective merit of articles on the subject add to Wikipedia's value (see: Perfumer, Aroma compound, History of perfume and List of perfumes) Fashionista55 (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have articles about notable perfumes, but this particular perfume doesn't seem to have been discussed in detail in multiple reliable independent sources, so I don't think it's notable by Wikipedia standards. It's acceptable to refer to company sources for specific facts that are not contentious, but they don't establish notability. The fact that the study of fragrances is important and notable doesn't have any relevance to this particular fragrance's notability. --Slashme (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference added to respond to doubts raised by the Huffington Post (though it is unfair to implicitly equate their fashion coverage with their coverage of other topics they may or may not promulgate) speaking directly to this fragrance and its notability from the South China Morning Post. A large portion of the article is dedicated to the fragrance, some of which I will quote for the purpose of contesting the claim of non notability: ...Sui was in the city to launch Fairy Dance, the last instalment in a trilogy of perfumes known as Secret Wish... The launch represents yet another mini-milestone in what’s been one long and rewarding career of them. Sui, whose exuberant designs meld influences as disparate as Victorian cowboy, Andy Warhol and Finnish textile print, is among an elite to have received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Council of Fashion Designers of America. Here is another international source speaking directly to this fragrance from Japanese Vogue [26]. Further here is a industry report from May 2012 covering Fairy Dance and its tie in to sales for the distribution company [27]. Further examples exist on notable coverage, especially in Asian media, but this is also notable in the USA. Fashionista55 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Style magazine article is a heavily promotional piece about Sui, which mentions the perfume in the context of the fact that she was in town to launch the product. That doesn't establish independent notability at all. The "beauty packaging" article barely mentions it in passing, and the Japan Vogue is basically a list of perfumes: typical run-of-the-mill product reporting. --Slashme (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional piece that does not establish third-party notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See above Fashionista55 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Fashionista55 - It isn't necessary or helpful in an AFD to refute every Delete. It doesn't increase the likelihood that any of them will change their !votes, but closing is based on strength of arguments anyway. Tendentious behavior at AFD is sometimes taken to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – promotional spam lacking in-depth coverage in a breadth of reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia policy. Citobun (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. minimal references. Just disguised advertising. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention this is part of a series of articles about half a dozen of the firm's perfumes in the identical format, most of which have been listed for speedy G11. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 24 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. part of a group of advertisements DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sui Love

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

Non-notable perfume, with the only references to trade press. No mainstream notability. Slashme (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article establishes notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO and not satisfying our basic policies. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:13, 23 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) 21:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Citizen's Party

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

Non-notable political party. No references, admits it was very short-lived and did not contest any elections. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no claim to notability, no evidence of any significant coverage = non-notable. Article itself makes a claim for what can best be described as a one-time or short-lived griping meeting, not an actual functional party. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:39, 23 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) 21:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenni Muldaur

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

The subject fails notability: none of the sources meet the criteria for a notable source. A google search turns up no dedicated article, etc from a reliable source in the first ten pages. She's listed largely because of her notable parents (Geoff and Maria), but in this encyclopedia notability is not inherited. Further, the article was created by an editor who has edited no other article,suggesting a very strong connection to the subject. I feel like a bit of an ogre for urging the deletion of an article about the attractive offspring of two quite notable artists, but that's just too bad--the article needs to go. Tapered (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cursory Google News search based in the U.S. demonstrates WP:BASIC if not WP:GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In July 1992, Billboard thought she was a newsmaker.1 Relying on Google alone for news articles from the early 90's seems a questionable — though quick and easy — approach for determining notability. Hmlarson (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check the example for triviality @ WP:GNG. The google news search lists a series of trivial mentions, nothing dedicated to Ms Muldaur—not even close. The Billboard entry is the embodiment of triviality: a caption/mention in a group picture. No article, no paragraph in an article. At the top of all AfD entries, there is a series of potential resources to find references. The subject was a FAIL for each of them. Tapered (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes the usual flawed arguments of notability by association and/or existence. Yes, she's had a long, busy career. But none of the provided sources offer significant independent, third party verification of anything of encyclopedic importance. If references can be provided that prove otherwise I'll gladly change my vote. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the list of records and tours looks impressive, she was a backing vocalist on those. Her own records do not appear to have charted or got major press coverage. Yes, there are some google news results, but I can't find any substantial coverage that is about her specifically. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jojo Capece

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

Subject isn't generally notable. Written as a promotional piece, this article carries a lot of content not supported by the sources. For example, the NYT source and the WaPo source only make out that she was a DC-based publicist and hosted meals. One is a mere mention and the other is self-serving tripe. The UPI source is also a mere mention. The italoamericano.org source is an interview and therefore not independent. The pieces from The Daily Telegraph and The Times are more substantial (rotating around inheritance issues) but I don't think any of these establishes general notability. This article claims this woman went by a few different names as the source material doesn't really line up and none seem to explicate these changes so I don't know for sure this is one person. There's too much self-promotion for me to ignore. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage to establish full notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the quantity and quality of the references are insufficient to establish notability. Once the puffery is tripped away, there is not much here that would support notability. A few of the references that I checked are very peripheral.198.58.162.176 (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khushboo Uttam

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

Subject may not meet the Wikipedia's notability criteria as per Biographies of living persons and MUSICBIO. — Sanskari ^Hangout 05:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Editor's contribution history and username is also pointing towards conflict of interest or self-promotion. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person. - TheMagnificentist 18:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Checking the potential sources of info doesn't show enough dedicated articles from reliable sources to warrant an article. Tapered (talk) 06:42, 16 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. czar 16:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imtiaz Ahmed (bangladeshi diplomat)

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

fails WP:BIO. no inherent notability in being an ambassador even to "major" countries. coverage merely confirms he held roles but nothing with him as a subject. curious that the article calls some appointments B and C grade ambassador. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clicking on the potential sources shows zero notability. Tapered (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not default notable and nothing else shows that Ahmed is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources only confirm this person is an ambassador. There's nothing supporting GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:29, 20 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. czar 16:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Iranian Research and Analysis

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources, except for one in-passing mention in an article that is about something completely different. Not even certain this still exists (homepage is a dead link). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to verify this journal exists at all. I am even unable to locate the publisher "Center for Iranian Research and Analysis" and prove that this exists. Google Scholar parses the words "journal", "Iranian", "research", "analysis" and yields all kinds of results, but lists no papers from this journal [28]. I am sorry to say, this journal in no way meets notability standards for this project. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - Transwiki to Wikiversity. Michael Ten (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even its own website doesn't even exists. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The search links show no dedicated articles from reliable sources. Tapered (talk) 06:46, 16 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 00:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Weerasinghe

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

Diplomats (including Ambassadors) are not automatically/inherently notable. This individual is a doctor & businessman neither role is notable. Whilst he was awarded Order of Honour (Russia) this is a widely awarded honour. Dan arndt (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I might otherwise make an argument about the Russian award being a qualifier for WP:ANYBIO, in this case he was already an ambassador and didn't (from what I see) earn the award on merit. Subject fails GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ambassador to a major country, presidential adviser and recipient of an honour that probably passes WP:ANYBIO #1, given the eminence of many of those awarded it. He does actually appear to have received it on merit if you read the article. He wasn't ambassador at the time. The reasons for the honour are clearly listed here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: What merit? That he was the head of the Sri Lanka-Russia Friendship Society? This looks like a very political award. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And that looks like a very POV statement. It's not your place, or indeed Wikipedia's, to determine what is a meritorious award of a major honour and what is not. That would be getting into very dodgy editorial territory. The best test, given editing demographics, is always to consider whether this individual would merit an article if he was British or American. I believe he clearly would and that any attempt to get it deleted would be soundly defeated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To make a determination "what is a meritorious award of a major honour and what is not" is part of the task here. Unless the criteria state what is or is not then we as editors have to determine. Otherwise we have every tiny entity creating an award so suddenly all awardees become notable. I'll be the first to admit that the Presidential Medal of Freedom has turned really political, too. This isn't a matter of POV. Are you assuming notability if the award is notable? When a political entity gives an award to someone at least after a lifetime of notable work I might be ok. When that entity awards an ambassador that was essentially a foreign-born Apparatchik I balk. There are plenty of AfDs I ignore because I know the hoi polloi will be blinded by cognitive biases and take the consensus the wrong direction. I !voted delete because I thought there might be enough commonsense in the room to see this for what it is. Maybe I was wrong. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take your borderline insults elsewhere where they will be more appreciated and don't attempt to apply them to people who actually know what they're talking about. This is not an award created by some "tiny entity". It is an award given by one of the most important countries in the world. To give you an example of what we consider to meet WP:ANYBIO #1, we consider any recipient of a British award of a CBE or higher to be de facto notable under that guideline. We do not consider why an individual has been given this award; that is not our place. It is a high award and we consider that an award of this level given by a major country is notable. This award certainly fits into that category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chris troutman - Russia is not a "tiny entity". So we can discard that strawman and move on. I suggest you need to try and assume good faith and resist the urge to insult rather than mocking other experienced editors as, effectively, the uneducated ill-informed masses ("hoi polloi", noun, derogatory) with your snide remarks. It seems you're trying to sound all clever using big words like "cognitive biases" but it doesn't really fit the context so ultimately you just look rather silly. If you don't wish to participate in AFDs because the presence of the plebeians is causing you distress and you are having trouble discussing and debating on an adult level then please don't obliged to stay. AusLondonder (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is routine coverage for work as an ambassador but a lackof indepth significant coverage of him as a subject. There is absolutely no inherent notability in being ambassador to a "major" country . This is reflected in strong community consensus that has deleted several such ambassadors. There also has been no attempt to discuss granting notability to "major" country ambassadors on the WP:BIO talk page. LibStar (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. The person has received a well-known and significant award for making a widely recognized contribution towards Sri Lanka-Russia relationships for 30 years.Source NEWS.lk. He is not a just another ambassador imo and some other awards he received for his diplomatic work includes;

Parliament of Russian Federation in appreciation of establishing and improving the international Relations and bi-lateral relationship between Russian Federation and Sri Lanka awarded a Merit certificate. This was awarded by the leading political party in parliament of Russian Federation ‘Unity of Russia’
The Shukov Fund awarded the medal for establishing strong Educational & Cultural ties between Russia and Asia Region including Sri Lanka. This was the first time a Sri Lankan was awarded this prestigious award.
The Russian National Committee on Social Awards accredited by granting one of the most prestigious medals in appreciation of the services in renaissance of Art, Culture and Charitable activities.
The Russian International Centre for Science and Culture under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russian Federation awarded the Friendship Medal for strengthening Cultural, Educational and Humanitarian activities between the two countries.
Diploma and Medal of Honour Awarded for the active assistance, to the inter-cultural relations development and major contribution to the humanitarian collaboration and the economic cooperation expansion between the Republic of Sri Lanka and the Russian Federation by State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation (The Russian Parliament). - (Source)

−−LahiruG^talk 06:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hardly any substance apart the sole claims of his ambassadorship which bestow no automatic notability at all, there's simply nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from the award that clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1, obviously! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ANYBIO as having received a well-known and significant award or honour. Also reasonable coverage in reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep @LibStar: The references appear reliable, and the award does appear to be significant. I'd like to see a list of diplomatic entries that have been deleted—at least in part to illustrate that there need to be clear criteria for evaluating diplomatic notoriety. The current "criteria" is a mess of equivocal 'officialese,' which translates as "We don't have any criteria and can't find a way to formulate them." Which leaves each individual article to be evaluated here. An inefficient, capricious way to do things. Tapered (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

plenty have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: Have all those persons received significant awards or honor for their contribution towards their specific field? --LahiruG^talk 06:10, 20 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. czar 16:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestle RAGE

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

Despite my best efforts in searching for sources online, and in spite of adding disambiguating terms, I couldn't find enough significant coverage about this wrestling event series. In fact, I actually couldn't find any relevant hits at all: the hits for WrestleRAGE I could find were for completely unrelated events with the same name. Given the age of the event, it's possible offline coverage exists, and I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if such sources are found, but given Australia's media presence, it would be really weird for an event that was apparently on PPV have few, if any, hits online. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Narutolovehinata5 I suggest a back off on this one if I may. It seems you nominated only minutes after creation by a NEWBIE, admittedly though with a very likely COI. I suggest you mentor and guide before we clobber and discourage a potential new wikipedian. We need all we can get. Aoziwe (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe: I honestly hate nominating articles for deletion, especially ones which had a lot of work put into them, or those created by new users. As much as possible, I only nominate articles for deletion if there's little chance it would survive anyway. Also, I may want to point to you Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Grace period for deletion, where to cut a long story short, articles (with few exceptions) are not immune from being nominated for deletion no matter how new the article is. It's not biting new users: if anything, it's a way to guide them what Wikipedia's notability guidelines are, with the end goal of a better understanding of Wikipedia editing. I know it sucks, (as an article writer myself, I know the feeling of having your work deleted from the mainspace), but that's the way things go. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also can't find sources and the editor hasn't made any changes on Wikipedia at all since their new page was put up for deletion so isn't likely to add whatever detail they might have had. Mortee (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 22:13, 17 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 redirect to Sons of Anarchy. czar 16:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club

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

Completely in universe and almost entirely without references. Lots of specuation about character intent and author intent, too. This is suggested for merge to the SOA show article, but once this is cleaned-up I don't think there's any usable material left, so I'm putting it up for deletion. Mikeblas (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and Redirect to Sons of Anarchy. Not only, as the nominator states, is this article just a huge mass of in-universe, unsourced plot info, a lot of it is just duplicative information from other, much better organized articles. For example, any of the major characters listed in the "members" section in this article are already included in the List of Sons of Anarchy characters. And then other sections, such as the "Murders" section, are pure, unsourced WP:CRUFT. While there are many sources on "Sons of Anarchy", the TV series, there are very few discussing the actual fictional motorcycle club "Sons of Anarchy", and those that do are either just pure plot summaries of episodes, or unreliable sources such as fansites or trivia pages. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sons of Anarchy. I agree with the nominator and with the previous comment. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 16 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 redirect to Flaw (band). Kurykh (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Divided We Fall (album)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some thoughts, since the last AFD didn't have much in the way of discussion.

I'm relatively familiar with the band - I rewrote the whole band article within the last year. The band has a long history of drama, and no one on Wikipedia (beyond myself) who understands Wikipedia policy (or basic writing.) So things tend to stay in a terrible shape unless I step in.
I've redirect the album article multiple times in the past, because it's typically unsourced and reads like garbage.
The sources brought up at the last AFD, if you look closely, probably all fail WP:RS. "Ihateyourband.com" or whatever it is, is clearly a random blogger. Sputnik Music isn't usable when its a "user review", which fails WP:USERG. The only passable looking one is maybe "CrypticRock", and even then I'm not sure.
There's a few articles like this, that announce the album, but generally don't really amount to "significant coverage".

Overall, I'm leaning towards redirect. The sourcing is extremely weak, and because of point #1, its not reasonable to think someones going to come along to clean this up any time soon. If this gains consensus, I'll be around to enforce it in the future as well, since I maintain the band article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Band is notable, therefore, the album article should be either kept, or redirected to Flaw (band). --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:05, 19 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) 21:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eloise (2002 film)

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything to support any notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A book reference was added on February 2nd. It mentions winning several awards. I can't see one of the pages, leaving me unsure of the depth of coverage. May not be enough by itself. Gab4gab (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:52, 16 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) 21:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Patrol

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

Unremarkable and unsourced television program. Lack of references, and the synopsis appears to have been copied directly from the first listed external link. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a little bit out there but no where enough for NEXISTS, to support notability that I can see. Aoziwe (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:52, 16 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. czar 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Joyce

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

The article subject falls under WP:BLP1E as she is only notable in connection to the rumors about her behavior in July 2016. The overwhelming majority of available coverage about the subject is about this one incident. BLP1E was designed to protect the privacy of relatively unknown individuals. She does have 2 million subscribers on YouTube, but reliable sources have largely ignored her work outside of the July 2016 controversy, and as a result, she is not really notable for her work outside the controversy either. Mz7 (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I declined a speedy deletion request for this article, removed and changed some content, and then sent it here. Here is how the article looked when I found it. Mz7 (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, to be honest, I do not see any notability even in connection with the disappearance.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given sources only refer to a ridiculous alleged kidnapping in July 2016. Jrheller1 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This falls under the rule that Wikipedia is not news, or probably more to the point Wikipedia is not unverified tabloid news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Marina Joyce was already a notable figure in the UK YouTube community before the kidnapping allegations, but through them she went viral. A big part of twitter and media was obsessed with these allegations for a while and I do think it's important to keep the Wikipedia page up as it can offer an quick objective overview of the situation. Romeowth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS & WP:BIO1E. No inherent notability or significance here. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 20 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. czar 15:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reuel Meditz

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

Not notable, fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG. Article was created by a WP:SPA who is likely the article's subject. Nominated for speedy deletion the same day and immediately defended by two one-time-use SPAs who are likely also the subject.

Subject is associated with one notable production. Everything else is redlinked. Numerous awards are listed, none of them notable in any way. The only source for awards is for the non-notable USOMC, from the USOMC, with no coverage for that award found anywhere.

I am unable to find additional reliable sources: Facebook, IMDb, CD Baby, the subject's own site, etc.

The sources cited are:

elegantvanities.com, a seemingly long dead site with nothing at archive.org. Searching for the site will, however, help you find fixtures for your stylish bathroom.
IMDb, which is not a reliable source but allowed me to add his role in Doctor S Battles the Sex Crazed Reefer Zombies: The Movie.
USOMC, the previously discussed competition. SummerPhD^v2.0 16:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person. - TheMagnificentist 19:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability requirements for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 20 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) 21:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University German Society

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "deprod; the oldest such society in Britain would seem to be notable". Well, there is no provision that "oldest X in Fooland" is notable. I couldn't find any good sources about this, and as such this student club does not seem to pass notability criteria. Can anyone find any sources that discuss its significance, importance, etc.? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford University Russian Society. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A society that's over a century old at one of the most famous universities in the world and that is the oldest such society in its country would seem to me to carry sufficient notability for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read my nomination? There's nothing in the rules that say that a foo-years old, oldest-foo in foo is notable. Plus, there is the small issue of the oldest claim being unsourced; this could well be pure PR/OR on the part of the student club member who presumably wrote this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read it. Don't agree with it. Applied common sense as opposed to non-existent "rules". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. Per common sense, I stand by my view that this is a footnote student organization that has zero impact outside its room and lacks an lacks any real world importance, thus being totally unencyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only references this page has originate from the organisation itself. The journal reference as a matter of fact is not even a journal; but simply an old minutes book of the club. User: J31ox 12:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no arbitrary age at which something suddenly becomes automatically notable. We need WP:RS to demonstrate meeting of WP:ORGDEPTH. Given this organisation has existed for some time, you would assume it would have in-depth coverage in reliable sources if it was notable. AusLondonder (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per AusLondonder. Bondegezou (talk) 11:17, 24 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. WP:SSEFAR does not override WP:GNG, WP:ORGDEPTH, and Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines. Kurykh (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender Greens

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

Contested prod. Rationale for deletion was "Absolutely no indication of meeting WP:GNG let alone WP:ORGDEPTH" IronGargoyle (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's not notable necessarily because it's part of the Green Party of the US. It is, however, notable for the same reason the Log Cabin Republicans, GOProud, and the Stonewall Democrats are per WP:SSEFAR. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. One organisation is not inherently notable just because a similar organisations is. Each organisation must meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH independently. AusLondonder (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SSEFAR - "Non-fiction literature, such as encyclopedias, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred." Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have cited a dubious section of a dubious essay. The first line clarifies "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with". The very section you cite states "Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that it should be followed elsewhere" - keeping this article conflicts obviously with crucial policy such as WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. AusLondonder (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited from the Green Party of the United States nor is it inherited from other (genuinely notable) LGBT political groups. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH as it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Fails the basic criteria at WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage, not notable. There's more published about fresh lavender greens as a salad vegetable than Lavender Greens as a political organization. Did you know lavender has many uses for baking and cooking? Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep Weak~~ Merge into Green Party of the United States#Caucuses~~as per Me-123567-Me;~~ WP:SSEFAR may be a weak argument but I'm inclined to support it. J 947 00:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:PROMO and because this group has not garnered sufficient attention in secondary sources, here: [29] for example, is a gNews search, showing 6 hits in 7 years - and 2 ouut of the 6 are salad recipes. It's just not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SSEFAR. --TM 16:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ I think there's ~~decent enough~~ Gbooks results: here, here, here... not great coverage I'll grant you ~~but enough that I think we're looking at a historically notable group~~. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn, I always take your comments seriously, so I ran a JSTOR search and got only a single hit. It reads: "As an ecofeminist member of the Green Party, I had listened to the distress of Lavender Greens who felt alienated by our premature presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, whose cavalier responses to questions about queer rights undermined the four pillars of the Green..." (Greta Gaard, “Toward a Queer Ecofeminism.” New Perspectives on Environmental Justice: Gender, Sexuality, and Activism, Edited by RACHEL STEIN, Rutgers University Press, 2004, pp. 21–44, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hj8sn.6.) That + the book hits are just so slight. Considering that this is the overlap of gay rights and Green Party, two of the publishingest groups of activists in the world, finding so little is a confirmation that this group is not notable. Even worse, the sources are such brief mentions that they enable us to do little more than source the fact that it exists, existing is not notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was sort of a leap of faith on my part, thinking there might be more that I couldn't find. This one, the one that we can't preview, sounded like it might be the most promising -- but then we know from the index it can't be more than a single page. Strikethrough my weak keep: could we redirect somewhere, leaving a categorized redirect as an LGBT green group? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is already listed in a subhead Caucuses of Green Party of the United States, where it can stay since none of the Green Party caucuses are bluelinked. It can't go to List of LGBT rights organizations because it's a formal list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is intriguing that two out of the three keep advocates have offered absolutely no policy-based argument (or any argument at all) to support their case. AusLondonder (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: I don't understand; all three keeps are based on WP:SSEFAR. J 947 02:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The same argument used for deletion in other AfDs – WP:OSE. Very poor argument for keep, really no argument at all. You're saying: "this isn't notable, but look over there!" Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't put it any better than Jack N. Stock has. AusLondonder (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, consistency is a good thing. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use your logic. Say the World Socialist Party of the United States starts an LGBT group. Is your argument that it is inherently notable because the Democratic LGBT group is? Where do we draw this arbitrary line since we're disregarding WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG? AusLondonder (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope we would include it. However, I think a very simple criteria can be applied - has the party run a candidate for President. Seems to be a standard at many state levels. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclusionist and I don't think one should be created. That it is a official LGBT group of a party should definitely not be considered inherent notability. However, I do believe that, as Me-123567-Me said, if the party runs a candidate for president, I would vote 'Keep' at an AfD for it. I also think that if it is an official LGBT group of the four major parties (Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, or Green), I would also vote 'Keep'. J 947 04:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's convenient. Last I heard, there were two major parties in the US, but you say there are four. Maybe there are three? Or five? Why not all the parties that named a Presidential candidate in 2016:

Constitution Party

Party of Socialism and Liberation

Reform Party

Socialist Party

Socialist Workers Party

and several others?

Or we could go further back:

Taxpayers Party

Natural Law Party

New Alliance Party

Communist Party

Labor Party

and so on.

So, LGBT groups of two major parties? Ten major parties? Why four, specifically? Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacknstock: It was just my example; I still think that there are two, but I was just using those four as my thoughts on the matter, and as the parties that received over one percent of the vote at the last presidential election. J 947 04:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think even 1% is arbitrary (especially as President Trump says 2% of the vote was illegal, and surely he would know), but OK, Stein got 1.06% of the vote if that's the rule of thumb. It's casting a broad net to claim that makes Lavender Greens notable, though, because notability is not inherited and, even if it was, Lavender Greens are barely mentioned in the will. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 1% and ran someone for Pres in the last 10 years? Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that a group called GLBTIQ Illegal Voters would be more than notable based on the previous position (representing the "lavender" component of (allegedly) ~2% of voters), and someone should start that organization. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Deletion alerts! at WikiProject Green Politics. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article claims that "members have served in elected office". This is uncited. Who were these elected officeholders? If we can't find them then at minimum that sentence needs to be removed, and that raises questions for the article as a whole. If we can find them that strengthens the case for notability. Also, for those voting delete, do you think Outright Libertarians also needs to go? The two seem identical in terms of notability to me in that both are the LGBTQA organizations of America's two middling parties that mirror similar entities in the two major parties. So if you want to delete one consistency would seem to call for deleting the other also. As to this page's fate I'm undecided and will be swayed by the answers to these two questions. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green_Party_of_the_United_States#Caucuses. No significant independent coverage in WP:RS. The one linked reference is to the hosted blog section of Huffington Post from a person connected to the caucus. All searches turn up are social media and web pages for the organization or its affiliates. There is no indication of notability separate from the parent organization, so it should be redirected to the parent article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As implied above, could be a disambiguation page to include Lavandula#Culinary use. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. There are, of course, Australian Greens (a major political party), but nobody confuses them with salad and there is no need of a disambiguation page in such cases.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Disambiguation is for articles that warrant stand-alone inclusion. Eggishorn is saying that this group doesn't warrant inclusion, so Redirect is appropriate. Tapered (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I first searched for news on "Lavender Greens" there was more about the herb than the caucus, but that was no longer the case when I looked yesterday. Still nothing substantial about the caucus, though. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If your googling or binging, it's possible that the search engine changed the order in which results appeared because it has data based on your clicks and other searches showing that you're interested in the caucus. The caucus was also the top result for me, but I've been poking around this page for long enough that my search and click history also isn't that of a "naive" user. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. No issue with a redirect to the Green Party of the U.S. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So for delete/merge supporters, should Outright Libertarians also be deleted or merged and if not why not? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it has got several reliable sources. J 947 18:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SSEFAR. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Green Party of the United States. The sources are reliable, BUT they're 'in-house.' The search tools produce only a couple of mentions, nothing close to a dedicated article, etc., so it fails notability. Since it is a part of a notable organization, and its sources are reliable, it warrants a redirect. Tapered (talk) 03:31, 27 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) 21:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2/1 game forcing

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

WP:NOTHOWTO TimothyJosephWood 22:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 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) 00:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't play bridge, so I can't make any sense of it. People who understand the jargon don't need it, people who don't understand the jargon can't use it. Per WP:NOTJARGON, the same policy as WP:NOTHOWTO, supported by MOS:JARGON. Anything that's worth keeping here belongs in Contract bridge#Game strategy. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Merge~~ ~~to Bidding system, the parent for this bridge bidding system. No independent notability.~~ Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MaxBrowne below has provided evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed. Seems like the best option, given the lack of independent notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To delete or to merge? That is the question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of the 4 major bidding systems currently in use, the others being Standard American, Acol and Precision, all of which have articles. Its use has been steadily increasing. Independent notability in that several books have been written about it. Article needs improving but that's fixable. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An absolutely essential page in the contract bridge world which some day should graduate to become a featured article on its own. There are many authoritative books written by world class players on the 2/1 system. Yes, improvements are needed but that is no reason to abort an emerging article. Newwhist (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "absolutely essential," then there should be plenty of sources that talk about it independently of other bridge bidding systems. If those are provided, then it should be kept. If not, then, well, not. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, this, this, this, this and this? MaxBrowne (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't withdraw at this point, and I still suspect that if I were king of Wikipedia I may also have a lot of the other bidding system articles deleted as NOTHOWTO, but I seem to be on the wrong side of the community on this one. TimothyJosephWood 02:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood:, I agree there's a WP:NOTHOWTO argument to be made, but at this point, the sources seem to confine it to a content argument, not a notability one. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

Delete - This page is more a how to page and agree WP:NOTHOWTO should be included. There is also a lack of notability attached to the page. Joseffritzl (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep -yes, the content is overly technical, but the subject matter is fine. The Land (talk) 15:12, 25 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) 21:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, Future Pollution

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

Non-notable album. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Article about a yet to be released album. No independent reliable sources - only sources are PR announcements. CBS527^Talk 01:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and at worst redirect) the song list and the first single have been released. There are already multiple reliable sources in Canada, in the US and in France discussing both the album and the single. Passes WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for keeping articles when possible but I have been unable to find any sources with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All the sources in the article are PR announcements and are not independent of the subject. A basic Google search is turning up more of the same and G-news, G-newspaper, HighBeam and New York Times is turning up 0 hits. I have no problem with a redirect though. CBS527^Talk 19:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This album is going to be released in less than two months, it is a notable upcoming album by a notable band. The lead single has already been released. I Googled the album title and found plenty of sources already, including NPR.--Bernie44 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The NPR source is another announcement where over half the article is direct quotes from Taylor Kirk, lead vocalist with the group. Unfortunately, that doesn't qualify as an independent source to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 23:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is coverage of the upcoming album, which, given the band's track record, is certainly notable. NPR is an independent source, whether or not it quotes a statement from the lead singer. There is also coverage of the initial singles from the album, like this, which I'll add to the article. And then once the album is released, there will be more coverage. Personally I don't think it makes sense to delete this page and then create a new one in April when the album is released.--Bernie44 (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording are specifically excluded for establishing notability per policy. See WP:NALBUM, Crit#1. The same applies for press releases or announcements. Generally, reviews in several publications are not enough in themselves to establish the need for a separate article. The current sources in the article seem to be nothing more than standard pre-release publicity announcements -

1. Publicity announcement with a list of tour dates in COS

2. Publicity announcement with a list of tour dates in Exclaim!

3. Publicity announcement in lesinrocks.com

4. Publicity announcement in NPR (see above)

There is no guarantee that this album will be notable after it's full release. If it qualifies for notability per guideline in the future then that's the time for a stand alone article, not before. CBS527^Talk 03:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're misreading that. Crit#1 is referring to things like press releases and interviews that are strictly first party accounts. Not articles written by third party sources that throw in some direct quotes. Sergecross73 msg me 03:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timber Timbre is a well-known indie rock band and this album will 100% be notable upon its release.--Bernie44 (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't believe that this article should be deleted. The album will be released in a few months and two singles have been released. Critics like Anthony Fantano from The Needle Drop have discussed the singles and the album is anticipated by a lot of music fans. For now there are not much we can add to the article but it's fair to wait before we make some thoughtless moves. AndreasAt (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing from the likes of NPR and Exclaim make it notable with the sourcing already present in the article. Nominations, and the deletion proposed, are a waste of the communities time. It's fine as it is, no reason to waste people time with deleting and recreating it after release. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 20 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) 21:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Football Union South West Division

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

I couldn't verify that this is notable. Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands it's WP:NOTDIR. LibStar (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an actual level of the promotion/relegation ladder and not independently covered in sources. Nothing useful to merge or redirect. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:10, 24 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 redirect to Three Mile Pilot#Discography. Redirect albums & songs before considering deletion. czar 15:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three Mile Pilot (EP)

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

Unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:12, 20 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) 21:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Equator Academy of Art

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

fails WP:GNG. looks like an advert with text like Equator prides itself as one of the most established and renowned art, media and design colleges in Malaysia. This institution only offers diplomas, as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES inherent notability is only granted to degree awarding institutions. LibStar (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. Even if the school offered diplomas (and thus inherently becomes notable), the article is such a mess and so promotional that it would be a better idea to just blow it up and start over. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:35, 16 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Matter of Faith

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Doesn't meet it on GNG guidelines - the only coverage I'm finding is an announcement in a local source that the film is filming nearby and needs extras, a couple announcements that the picture will be screened locally, and AV Club taking up another site's snark over the trailer. As for the numbered NFILM criteria, Rotten Tomatoes finds "no critic reviews yet"; it is not yet five years old and thus cannot meet historic criteria; I find no sign that the film has won a major award, been chosen for preservation, or is discussed as part of notable academic film programs. (And to stave off anyone bringing up the site Answers In Genesis, that doesn't get counted as a reliable source for notability purposes under WP:NFSOURCES as they are a company who was "working with it on the production and release", as AiG was giving guidance to people on how to sponsor showings, and the film's website was steering people to AiG.) Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Four of the actors in the film, as well as the producers are apparently notable enough to have their own articles. Concerning Answers in Genesis (and also Creation Ministries International), I see no evidence that they helped produce the film and that there is a conflict of interest (I speak not ideologically or doctrinally). The two organizations are in the resources section of the film's website, but this is likely simply because they share the same views. Very few creationist films make it into theaters, and these organizations care a lot about this topic, so it's natural that they would actively promote each other. I don't think mentioning AiG is a problem here. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AiG staff had a consulting role on the film. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article you shared (and Ken Ham's blog post linked to the article) shows that one AiG staff member served as a content consultant for the film. This is a far cry from AiG helping produce the film. They promoted the film because they agreed with its message. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a point of knowledge or an assumption? Because their attempt to raise investors for the film showings and so forth all look like someone with some skin in the game. Not that they would be considered a significant source on film in any case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear to everyone (except probably ardent critics who disparage AiG and everything they do and believe) that the creation/evolution issue is important and means a lot to the organization. One can see in all they do. You could see their efforts in promoting the film as a way to make money, but (especially considering that only one AiG staff member is doing anything with the film) it's much more reasonable that AiG saw this movie as a way to promote their views and did everything in their power to have as many people see it as possible. If I saw that someone were making a movie on a topic that I cared deeply about, I would also do all in my power to promote it. There is no evidence, at least that I've seen, that shows AiG has a conflict of interest (in a non-ideological/philosophical sense), and its actions are in line with everything else I've seen. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. For purposes of this discussion I'm willing to discount the AiG source, and I also acknowledge that many of the newspaper articles about this film are largely rewrites of publicity; but there are quite a number of them, and there's the article at The A.V. Club [30] and a shorter one at Death and Taxes Magazine [31]. Not the strongest sourcing in the world and it's borderline but enough for me.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added a review from the Dove Foundation and it looks like Birth Movies Death wrote about it. I'm unsure if BMD is considered a RS on here though and its TOU is a bit concerning since they make "no representations or warranties as to the accuracy of the Content" and that if something is wrong, they may or may not correct it. My reaction is to say that it's not, given a read of that page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm kind of on the fence with this one. There really aren't a lot of reviews out there and the majority of sources I've found are local-type news articles that are predominantly written to discuss an upcoming showing in their town. However what makes these usable is that they're articles about the film as a whole rather than just routine listings of an event. This isn't the strongest keep, but it seems to be enough to pass NFILM at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:46, 21 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) 21:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual (band)

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

Released one single and and EP. Members, notebly Jamie Stewart, would join the Cult. Notability is not inherited though. Redirect and merge with Stewart. Karst (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBAND #6: Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article in accordance with the significance of the band in the development of a strand of punk music in that particular place and its links with the history of punk in Harrow in early 1980s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.194.40 (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC) 79.77.194.40 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Romanywoman (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Romanywoman[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Refs are not reliable. Search tools produce no evidence of notability. Fails WP:N. Tapered (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 20 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. czar 15:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Nwakacha

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

I just can't see what is notable about this man. Sitush (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be an ordinary engineer who had a long career with a single company and retired from a management role. Can't find anything which elevates him above numerous others. Long service with an organisation doesn't of itself mean notability (if it did, I'd qualify myself and that certainly isn't the case!) Neiltonks (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an article lacking any claim of significance. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merely being an engineer is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and Oluwa2Chainz. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:35, 21 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) 21:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blumond

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

Unsourced, unverified. Original article said it was a settlement in the center of the island. Then another editor changed the article to say "off the coast" and added coordinates that put it offshore - but there is no land shown at that location. I can't find any evidence such a place exists. Google hits all appear to be mirror sites. The closest thing I have found is a street in Aruba spelled Bloemond. There is [[32]], which says Bluemond is near Bloemond st. - but I can't say that is a RS. It might be a small neighborhood, but even if is it does not meet GNG or GEOLAND. MB 17:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. GeoNames at NGA.mil says that Blumond is a "populated locality" at 12°32′15″N 69°59′55″W / 12.5375°N 69.998611°W / 12.5375; -69.998611. The coordinates in the article are way off. A Google search mostly gets real estate listings. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

update: I have corrected the obvious misinformation in the article. The editor who did this is a Wikipedia admin, so I'll WP:AGF and consider this an honest mistake. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 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) 00:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially a WP:TNT at this point. I am unable to find any sources using this spelling (other than the US military database) and neither are there reliable sources about "Bloemond Street" itself. Accordingly, I think we can safely delete this and let someone else start it again when they have enough sources. The content in the article is quite less and I don't think we will lose something significant by deleting this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been sorted out what this is, apparently a settlement, and the coordinates have been fixed. The !vote invoking "TNT" jumps out at me, as invalid, for the numerous reasons listed out at essay wp:TNTTNT, including that why on earth would we want to destroy what has been figured out, and lose link to this AFD itself, etc., all lost if the article is deleted? Why leave a possibly tricky trap for the next editor to blunder into creating the article anew? An invocation of "TNT" is essentially a concession that a topic is valid, plus a plan to make things more difficult for everyone. (N.B. At another AFD, some editors scream about the fact that I created the essay wp:TNTTNT which I am citing. IMO the essay gives good reasons to keep something like this.) --do ncr am 23:06, 23 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Moore (author)

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

I have not been able to establish that this person meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The best I could find were this and this. Adam9007 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've removed a lot of copyvio from the article, which is much slimmer as a result. I don't think much is lost, there was a mass of unreferenced stuff there. I found one more source, this, which seems to be typical "local boy makes good" coverage by a very local paper. In general, the chances of a writer meeting WP:AUTHOR before the publication of his first book are pretty slim. I don't think this one does. It's perhaps questionable whether he's actually an author at all: his name is on the book, but so is that of Andy Butcher, in the sort of small type that's often used to credit a ghost-writer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy The book will be published in April by Hachette. If page creator @MarkMoore325: is willing, we could move it to userspace. It could be moved back to mainspace if the book gets reviews and/or in-depth feature article or author profile coverage in multiple major media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, however, page is mere pre-publication book PROMO. In-depth coverage of Moore's career in major media would make him notable, but Moore is a hard name to google. Still, if there are articles about him in WP:RS publications (places like, I urge User:MarkMoore325 to add them to the page. Businessmen and philanthropists can be notable, of course, but their activities have to be covered in places like daily newspapers, or magazines. Does nayone know the name of the IT company he is said to have co-founded?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best WP:TOOSOON but more likely WP:COI self-promotion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one reference is remotely notable, and that's not close to dedicated. Search tools produce nothing, even with 'author' removed. Not notable. Delete. Tapered (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is so little (either text or sources) in this stub, and the odds of a bestseller are so difficult to state, that I'd urge deletion for now. Bearian (talk) 04:47, 27 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) 21:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Ashley

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

All the sources I see mirror the two sentences in this article. Not even sure of her real name. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR Rogermx (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genre novelists are hard. She is successful, because publishers do not continue to publish paperback writers who don't sell. Moreover, she was active in the last century, so sources will not be online. And she used a lot of names.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources She is discussed in an article Chicago Sun-Times, January 26, 1986 "Good-by to Avon's romantic intrigue" about the end of Avon's "Velvet Glove" intrigue series. It includes a brief review of the final books published in the series, including a book by her, but I can't open the link.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Genre writers are inherently difficult to demonstrate notability for, but I can't find any significant coverage. The Chicago Sun-Times article referred to above is only very briefly about this author and virtually the only source beyond goodreads, etc. Can't find another article where redirect or merge would be appropriate.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:24, 24 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. czar 15:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Diukova

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

Lack of notability. XXN, 23:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Singer produced no hits using the google and news search tools from the top bar. Zero notability. Tapered (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:51, 20 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. czar 15:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Mansur

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

Removed PROD - original contention was "Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG" Mifter (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is well sourced as it is about a popular singer. Also contains reference to iTunes store.Please consider fixing the page instead of deleting it.all it needs is more information and reference if that's needed.outlawdon (talk)18:43,13 February 2017 (UTC)

keep Page is of a notable singer. maybe needs more reference but that's not reason for the page delete. Manunited20 (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see sufficient IRSS to support notability. @Manunited20 and Outlawdon: While AfD is not about cleaning up articles, please feel free to improve the current referencing in the article if you know where to find good references. The current ones are rather poor. Aoziwe (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Further comment I just added more reference to the page @ Aoziwe. I understand that the reference is not somehow so amazing, but not every wiki page has perfect referencing and are 100 percent.
Removed old reference and added new ones,also added new information. I hope the right thing is done 21:01,9 February 2017(UTC)

Delete - non-notable person. - TheMagnificentist 18:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment made by TheMagnificentist is false as the person is notable. How can you be not notable and have some many YouTube & reference pages? do the research before negativity please . 15.38,10 February 2017 (UTC)

I searched it on Google News and received only 5 results, all of them aren't about any Assyrian singers named George Mansur. - TheMagnificentist 13:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment made by TheMagnificentist... So what your implying is that all articles on Wikipedia have google news reference on them? your meant to type up the actual name on google. not every page on Wikipedia has news pages, in saying that there are so many Assyrian Artist on Wikipedia that have similar reference pages to what I have posted and are still on Wikipedia and have been for years.16:42,13 February 2017 (UTC) User:Outlawdon.

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Aoziwe (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a moderator to review the situation with the deletion of the the page as it has been getting updated since it was created and is within the wiki standards.16:43,13 February 2017 (UTC) User:Outlawdon.
Comment

The references are still almost of no use at all. They consist of track listings for two or three albums, and a video clip or two.

The references do demonstrate that the person is a singer, has released two or three albums, and is assyrian.
They are no reviews of the albums referenced.
Some of the references seem to mismatch some of the dates given in the discography.
They do not show that the person is based in Sydney.
They do not show that the person was born in Baghdad.
A couple of the references seem to be blogs, and not reliable reference sites.
Shopping sites, ie music down load sites, are not normally good reference sites.
There is more referencing here for the albums than the artist. Notability is not inherited.

Sorry, but you need to find independent reliable secondary reference sites about the artist.

If you can address the above there might be a good chance the article will survive. If I have missed anything and got it wrong I am happy to be corrected. WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO will provide a lot more information.

Aoziwe (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I Understand that the reference does not explain every detail of the artist, but they do show his notability right? He has many albums released .with the previous comment I left I said many Assyrian artists have similar reference to what I have posted on George Mansur page.

The artist is Assyrian
The artist has released all the albums listed
He is from Sydney Australia (Stated on his official Facebook & Twitter)
Born in Iraq Baghdad was removed until we get future reference on The Place of Birth.
The page is simple and does not include information that should not be included.
The Artist is a very known artist from Australia Just like the other Assyrian singers listed on Wikipedia
If you type the artist name on Google that will show so many pictures videos and music web pages of the music artist

Outlawdon (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I would like to keep the article if it can be properly referenced. Facebook and twitter are not reliable reference sites and doubly so if they are "official" sites because they are also then primary references too, primary references not being acceptable here. The best strategy you can adopt to keep the article is to find reliable, independent of the artist, secondary references about the artist specifically. AS well as MUSICBIO and GNG, Please also see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Aoziwe (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just removed some information from the page as it had no reference..Would it be possible for Aoziwe to review and edit the page? As I don't have much Wikipedia experience..would love for someone to review and edit what the page needs so it can stay on Wikipedia.:Outlawdon 15:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Outlawdon. I am not sure that I can help any more than the advice I have already offered. I have had two attempts to find sufficient better references with no success. I was hoping you who I presume know the subject matter better than I, would be able to do so. The underlying problem is the lack of independent, secondary, reliable references to support notability of the subject matter. If these cannot be found there is nothing I nor other editors can do to improve the article. The only thing I think I can suggest further is for you to check for references in the Assyrian people language, Modern Aramaic I presume?, but they still have to independent, secondary, and reliable, and readily translatable. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable. Extreme lack of independent coverage. Being Assyrian does not make one notable. Same with being from Sydney. No evidence of being very known, which itself is short of notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cam down @ duffbeerforme you don't know what your typing up.No evidence of being very known? lol, read Wikipedia guide lines first. .:Outlawdon 15:59, 21 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) 19:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 New Zealand Open Grand Prix

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

Non-notable badminton tournament. Only reference is to a results database. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep it was notable badminton tournament and the highest level tournament in NZ.Stvbastian (talk) 21:16, 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) 05:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. If this was really as prestigious as suggested above, there would be more than two sources from the same website. Laurdecl ^talk 09:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laurdecl, which 'notability guideline' said a page is non-notable if it doesn't have more than two sources from the same website? Stvbastian (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stvbastian: WP:GNG. Laurdecl ^talk 22:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurdecl I can't find the statement about two sources from the same website. Can you help me to cite it? Stvbastian (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you actually read it. Try, for example, the first line. Laurdecl ^talk 02:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also point out that things like: "This international event offers a great platform to showcase Auckland to the important Asian investor, education and visitor markets." are very unencyclopedic and bordering on advertisement. Laurdecl ^talk 02:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no statement in WP:GNG talk about a page is non-notable if it doesn't have more than two sources from the same website. And this page became non-notable because only have a reference on the external links about results database. Since i already add some references its already meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Now you talk about unencyclopedic and bordering on advertisement. I know it was not independent, but i think it just needs to be edited only. Stvbastian (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Significant coverage criterion would appear to be satisfied by the fact that two sources - Badzine.net and the Sunday Star Times - both had news articles that include the name of the tournament in the title of their articles and that the the Badminton World Federation had a fact page about it. In addition to the three independent sources cited in the actual article, Getty Images had photos, the NZHerald had at least one story, and so did the Indonesian Badminton Association. As for 'unencyclopedic' content, I believe deletion of such sentences is the standard remedy, rather than deletion of entire articles and that appears have been taken care of, for the sentence quoted by User:Laurdecl above. --Donaldinyongin (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't appear to meet GNG or SIGCOV. A quick look at some Google News results doesn't indicate any notability. J 947 09:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:48, 25 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. czar 15:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evian Christ

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

Just a page with no reliable source, and no notability for a musician. Been listed with Template:use mdy dates since October 2016 and no response. DBrown SPS (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete hence the fact that this article fails WP:BASIC, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:MUSICBIO. No secondary source found to prove information nor notability. Christ is not notable on certain sites and not often credited for attention. 66.189.232.210 (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources to "prove information" are available in the references section of the article. Perhaps you missed this? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the list of references includes a full-length profile in the Guardian and articles on the BBC and the Independent. All three are "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and I'd argue that the three together represent "significant coverage", thus ensuring he meets WP:GNG.Lincolnite (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Part of the nomination and the delete !vote by the IP user is patently false (e.g. "Just a page with no reliable source", "No secondary source found to prove information..."), because at the time the article was nominated for deletion (diff), the page had sources from The Independent, BBC, The Guardian, Dazed, Fact and Pitchfork. The subject meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC per a review of available sources in online searches. Some sources are interviews, but also include non-interview content about the subject written by the authors. Some source examples include, but are not limited to [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NM, plenty of sources available (as shown above) discussing Christ and his music. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References include dedicated articles from the Independent, BBC, Guardian. All reliable sources. Ergo, meets WP:N. Tapered (talk) 04:22, 21 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. czar 15:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mnislav

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

This is not a notable name per WP:APONOTE as there is not anyone notable with the name. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:14, 16 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 redirect to DAAS Icon. Nothing sourced to merge. czar 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Want to Spill the Blood of a Hippy

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

Declined as CSD:A9 because the artist has an article so it's here now. Unsourced song article and all search results return is Youtube, social media, lyrics sites, and Discogs. No WP:RS results to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously fails basic notability guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with DAAS Icon, where I think it is worth mentioning that "Hippy" and "Bottle" were released as singles, but they aren't notable or distinct enough to sustain their own articles. Keys and chords are not referenced and are possibly original research. --Canley (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent album, DAAS Icon. Additional information is available: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. None of these appears to be enough for a stand-alone article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:32, 22 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alamo North Texas Railroad

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

A private 2.2 mile railroad line which connects a quarry to the Union Pacific line. I could not find reliable and independent secondary sources to establish that it satisfies WP:N or WP:ORG, just a few listings to show it exists. I'm not aware that rail spurs get inherent notability. Edison (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero notability AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 20 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. czar 15:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Olin Hathcock

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

Purported claims to notability include being a county judge and a college trustee, neither of which is inherently - or even usually notable - but, morevoer, doesn't seem to be the coverage to meet WP:GNG Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no clear claims to actual notability and fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 20 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) 21:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Wilkinson

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

PROD contested by article creator. Fails RLN as not yet played in Super League. Craig (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, BLP PROD may not be removed until a source is provided. But since we're here, may as well run with it I suppose. TimothyJosephWood 19:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't think I was allowed to re-add a PROD once it is contested. Craig (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still eligible for BLP PROD, will remain so until a source is added. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skemcraig, no worries, most PRODs are like that, but BLP PROD is special, with conditions that must be met above simply someone contesting it. Specifically, some source must be provided. Even an external link or a badly formatted ref will satisfy this, but it can't be stand-alone without reference to anything at all. Just FYI for future reference. TimothyJosephWood 01:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page has an attempt at a source, but it goes to a 404. However, the page doesn't meet RLN or GNG guidelines. Mattlore (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Updated the page as the details tracked back to different player and was also not spelled correctly. The details have been corrected and he played for the Bradford Bulls at the weekend.Theanonymousentry (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for fixing the reference. However, playing for a League 1 side doesn't satisfy the criteria at WP:RLN. Mattlore (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have move page to represent the players actual name of Brandan rather than Brandon. He has featured in a first team game for Bradford against Hull Kingston Rovers in Week 1 of the 2017 Championship. As this is a professional league the page should stand. There is currently a lot of RL player pages who have not played Super League and yet are still up. As I pretty much only update the Bulls pages (being a fan and avid Wiki editor) I would appreciate any help or advice through PM's in order to bring this page up to the correct standard. Thank you! Migitgem2009 (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: one appearance in a Championship game does not make him notable per RLN. If he's successful, the page can be recreated later but, for the time being, it's WP:TOOSOON. Lincolnite (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. Re-create if and when he plays in the Super League. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:46, 22 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) 21:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RiseUp Summit

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

This article has no references indicating notability. Google search does not find independent third-party coverage. Any event can say that it is the largest event in a continent. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - There are certainly sources covering the event but the page's promotional tone needs to be cut out. Meatsgains (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur, clear company advertising and the attempts of sourcing only show company PR, sufficient case in it alone. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets GNG per a review of available sources. For starters, to address concerns in the nomination herein, I added some sources to and have copy edited the article. Also, the article does not have a particularly promotional tone; rather, it provides a brief overview and demonstrations of significance. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw plenty of sources and looked at the snippets at Google News for this world-stage event of 5,000 that according to Forbes attracted Microsoft and Uber in 2015. I had to avoid a RiseUp that took place in Washington, DC. I found coverage on the first page there in Daily News Egypt, Egyptian Streets, Africa.com, Disrupt Africa, The Africa Report, and Forbes. Unscintillating (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the RiseUp event in DC may have been unrelated? Fusion has also done some events called RiseUp (1, 2, 3) and I can't tell that they are connected to this event in Egypt. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell what response you want, since my post said, "I had to avoid a RiseUp that took place in Washington, DC." But yes, I also found that the Billboard and Washington Post articles were not related. I don't recall seeing the nbcsandiego.com source. Unscintillating (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional, with doubtful notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 25 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) 21:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Recording Company

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

Non-notable record label, no sources. Evking22 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found

http://web.archive.org/web/20120110164942/http://www.standardrecording.com/ archive of homepage
http://www.fortwaynereader.com/story.php?uid=878 full article
http://www.nuvo.net/indianapolis/farewell-to-jascha-the-last-honest-man/Content?oid=2782926 two minimal GNG mentions

Delete Publishers have a low threshold for inclusion, but this publisher may have been flying under the radar, in recording titles such as "what the hell; it's christmastime". I only found one entry in Google Books. In business for over a decade, someone in Indianapolis is likey to have access to additional sources, so Userfy on request. Unscintillating (talk) 21:45, 20 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) 21:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric R. Dawicki

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

No real evidence of notability -- the references are incidental. Highly promotional, and I can see no way to improve this that would actually help, as there is no fundamentally notable content. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is way too promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 20 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 G7 by User:Doc James SmartSE (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle B. Cowley

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

Does not meet WP:PROF. According to Google Scholar, the citations to her work are 18,15, 8, 6, 3, and 1 [44], which is low even in mathematics, and particular low for studies that might have practical applications. The Fellowship is not an award that qualifies in the sense used in WQP:PROF -- according to our article on the Royal Statistical Society, "Unusually among professional societies, all members of the RSS are known as "Fellows" " There is no reason to think that inclusion in "Top 100 empirical legal studies 2014" is a mark of distinction. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as not meeting WP:PROF (or the GNG). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 16 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) 21:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksonville Bancorp

AfDs for this article:

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

No third party references except one local paper reference to the move of the headquarters. Everything else is a press release or their own web site and DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a functional organization - formerly a holding company for stock of a bank, but now bought out so has only paper existence. No sign of passing WP:GNG and all sources are WP:ROUTINE . Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 2 minutes ago

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

State Investors Bancorp

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the refs are third party substantial references that would show notability. Nor would I expect to find them a a small local bank. I supported it in 20`14, but none of my arguments then convince me now. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a functional organization - formerly a holding company for stock of a bank, but now bought out so has only paper existence. No sign of passing WP:GNG and all sources are about WP:ROUTINE stock transactions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:26, 23 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) 21:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Da YoungFellaz

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about them in independent reliable sources. Spam bombarded with primary sources. Points to a Spellemannprisen win but that was won by Ralph Myerz Band, Da YoungFellaz were only one of many guests on the album. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this article is not eligible for deletion, because all reliable sources have been listed from notable news websites, 2DopeBoyz, The Source, Discogs, Oxygen Network along with a few others have all covered the group, making them notable. Da YoungFellaz have officially released a lead single featuring Snoop Dogg, George Clinton and Nipsey Hussle through EMPIRE Distribution on January 8th 2016, a song off of the 2013 Spellemannprisen award winning album Supersonic Pulse from Ralph Myerz, as well as another song with Young Money/Cash Money artist Cory Gunz, and both have been linked with reliable sources. Da YoungFellaz performed in Norway on the NRK Network at the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2011 which was also listed with a reliable source showing their notability, they are also listed as artist on EMPIRE Distributions Wikipedia page, and official website, showing that they are artist on the label, with official releases from the label. Their song "Bounce" with Electropoint was featured on Bad Girls Club - Season 16, Episode 7 on November 8th, 2016, which has also been linked with a realiable source from the Oxygen Network. They've also officially released songs with Sadat X of Brand Nubian, Donny Goines, Talib Kweli, Cassidy, Phil Da Agony of Strong Arm Steady, which have all been linked to reliable sources showing it's release and media coverage. ihaterobots78 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ONLY edits ever done by the above commenter are the above 'keep,' edited several times. It seems likely this account is strictly to support the presence of this article. The value of this contribution is nil. Tapered (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid DeleteThe google references aren't from reliable sources. They're mostly from 3-4 years ago, which means the group hasn't gotten traction in mainstream media/reliable sources. This group was rapidly deleted 4 years ago. Nothing has changed, except four more years without notability. Tapered (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many references are provided, nearly all (I stopped counting) are user submitted. I can't find independent, third party verification from significant sources of this subject's notability. The article seems to make a claim of notability by existence alone. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But what about the reliable sources speaking on their Snoop Dogg collaboration that was just released in 2016? Also, what about the music that was released last year through EMPIRE Distribution a record label on Wikipedia? Or by Elliott Wilson's website Rap Radar just last year? 2DopeBoyz are also on Wikipedia, and have written about the group as recent as 2015-2016 wouldn't all of this show their notability? Or how about DJ Funk Flex of Hip-Hop radio station WQHT in New York who just spoke on the group 2 months ago? These are all of the sources listed, there's also links of HipHopDX writing about the group. There's lots of recent reliable sources who are also on Wikipedia and in the Hip-Hop realm writing about this group and as recent as of late 2016, showing their notability. Ihaterobots78 (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Admins please note: this is a second "keep" from an editor with no contributions to anything except the article in question, and this page. Tapered (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Admins please note: I have no connection to this band, I've been following this duo for quite some time, they have Verified Accounts on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, VEVO, amongst several other sites. If this band isn't notable why are these social media sites/apps verifying their accounts? (Twitter.com/dayoungfellaz, Instagram.com/dayoungfellaz, Facebook.com/dayoungfellaz, YouTube.com/dayoungfellazvevo). Ihaterobots78 (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo J. Mendes

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

Not notable. Award nomination is not for him and is not major. Lacks coverage about him in multiple independent reliable sources. Exposed vocals is a pay for play promotion platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The search tools turn up no dedicated entries from reliable sources, only Mr Mendes website. No info from reliable sources, let alone dedicated entries = no notability = delete. Tapered (talk) 07:22, 22 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) 21:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Professional open source

AfDs for this article:

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

this article is clearly advertising on the article i have read the entire article and to comply with all of the demands i would have to remove entire sections of the article as it has clear bias from my point of view even though wikipedia entirely relies on FLOSS thus meeting FSF criteria this article Violates NPOV and is advocacy of open source which proselytizing, evangelism, ministry etc is prohibited in another words wikipedia is not an advocacy website, wikipedia is also not a place to promote the various companies that are in this article, another objection to this article is original research which according to wikipedia policy does not belong on wikipedia and also this article is unnecessary considering we have the Business models for open-source software which has none of the problems i have listed for Professional open source Jonnymoon96 (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not as bad as some, but it looks like the material comes almost all from a single-purpose account ArunPatel95 as a school project in two weeks of October 2014. I hope Wikipedia has learned that school projects that focus on creating new articles are counter-productive. They almost always produce one-sided articles filled with direct promotional quotes that are at best a snapshot in time. Then veteran editors spend their time finding those articles and deleting them. /rant W Nowicki (talk) 17:38, 17 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) 21:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Griffiths

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

Fails WP:NBIO, as tagged since August 2008. Primary sources do not establish notability, and searching fails to find reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of this article is certainly notable, as per WP:PROF guideline 5: As a specialist in the history of West Africa, she holds a major university's chair in area studies. It is not reasonable or fair to be hypervigilant in deleting articles into which Wikipedia editors have invested considerable good-faith efforts in originating and improving. I am still endeavouring to secure more non-primary-source references; please don't hobble such efforts. — Objectivesea (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. This early career academic does not pass WP:Prof#C1 on basis of cites in GS. Eligibility for WP:Prof#C5 is too slender. and would be only a technical pass of this guideline. No prospect of WP:GNG. Investment of considerable good-faith efforts in originating and improving the BLP is worthy and welcome, but does not contribute to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Cannot see that Griffiths work has attracted either sufficient scholarly or general media attention to pass notability, at least, at this point in her career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:25, 20 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) 21:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Web Help Desk

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT, as tagged since August 2008. I do not see how CDW Solutions is a valid source for notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the name is too generic for even a redirect. There should be some mention of the acquisition in the article on SolarWinds - does not even mention it there yet? W Nowicki (talk) 20:18, 20 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. czar 15:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone Custom Homes

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

Almost a business-directory listing, about a bog-standard real estate development company in Pennsylvania.Not seeing any evidence of actual notability, national or otherwise. Calton | Talk 02:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Jeff Rutt, now a redirect to this article. --Calton | Talk 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- advertorial only. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 17 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. czar 15:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Novacyt Group

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

A directory listing, really, of a small medical-lab-supply company. Passing mentions. Calton | Talk 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. No refs in the article, and found no refs, showing this company is anything but run of the mill. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 20 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. czar 15:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Dog Matis (disc jockey)

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

Most of the available sources aren't independent of the subject and the remaining few don't make general notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local radio personalities whose notability is limited to a single media market might occasionally get Wikipedia articles for that, if those articles can be reliably sourced really well — but they're not automatically entitled to that if there are just four sources of which two are primary sources and the other two just verify that he exists and don't support any particular reason why his existence would warrant the attention of an encyclopedia. I see that claims of greater notability have been made in the edit summaries of past edits, without ever finding their way into the text or the sourcing of the article — I might be willing to revisit this if they get added and properly sourced, but an article doesn't get kept just because an unsourced claim of notability is made somewhere other than in the article itself. Bearcat (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not enough information available to warrant a unique article. Also, great argument by Bearcat. KMJKWhite (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one market disc jockeys are very rarely notable, and nothing in this article indicates Matis is an exception to this rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 20 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. czar 15:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stattenheim remote control

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

I don't see how this gadget from Dr. Who is in and of itself notable. Seems to have been created as part of a rather large number of page creations/redirects in order to cover every conceivable meaning of "remote control". Only source is a Wikia fan page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you like here, but let me first explain what I am doing. remote control is a stupidly ambiguous term, and , unsurprisingly, it is mislinked all over the place e.g. remote controled weapons platform, remote control bombs, remote control car etc etc. The page itself refers very specifically to consumer electronics. What seems far more sensible to me is to make remote control a {disamgiguation} page, and you rely on other redirects or phrases to get the right uses. 'TV remote', 'remote handset' etc etc. Fmadd (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In consumer electronics, a remote control is a component of an electronic device such as a television set, DVD player, or other home appliance, used to operate the device wirelessly from a short distance." -- see how problematic this is?????? it's FAR too specific. Theres' wired remotes . The article about teslas demonstration of a remote control boat points at this. And so on and so on. Fmadd (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of jabber that has exactly nothing to do with the subject under discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is completely unnecessary. Already mentioned in the TARDIS article. Not enough content to warrant its own article. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. This is the metaphorical equivalent to changing a light bulb by buying a Hummer. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per User:Adamtt9. Flat Out (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creation by a blocked user. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that have to do with anything? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, redirect or delete should be the obvious result here. I just want to be clear that an article being created by a user who was subsequently blocked is no reason for deletion. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. He was not blocked when he created this article. Meters (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, there's a redirect to an existing entry in List of Doctor Who items#Stattenheim remote control Ll928 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted by a sock of User:Fmadd Adamtt9 (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at most redirect to the mention in List of Doctor Who items. This is part of a long string of remote control edits by a now-indeffed SPA. Meters (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, although probably mentioned in Dr Who encyclopaedias, would be of interest to hard core fans only ie. appears on a number of fansites online, is this the only episode (The Two Doctors) it is in? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oops, i see its mentioned elsewhere in the Whoiverse, but not enough for a standalone article.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 19 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.