Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 October 23 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RBCD Performance Plus, Inc.[edit]

RBCD Performance Plus, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been around since 2006 but appears to have no viable claim to notability other than that it appears to sell ammunition which is not all it is cracked up to be. If all companies that mis-sell their products were deemed notable, we would be inundated here. The refs give no credible sense of any notability and only one seemed to mention the company. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   23:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with nom. No clear claim to notability. Of the four refs, none appear to offer any in-depth reliable coverage. Searching find many mentions mostly in various blogs, but still no reliable independent coverage to satisfy WP:CORP. MB 01:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I searched on Google and couldn't find any usable sources that talk about the company. The Blended-metal bullets article contains some of the same material, so not much would be lost in the deletion of this article. Felsic2 (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete as clear advertising with none of what's listed becoming both substantial information and news, nothing suggests otherwise especially considering the sheer number of several rarely-used accounts involved. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete by consensus. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 North American spring[edit]

2016 North American spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTH. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um how is that WP:SYNTH? It is like the winter pages, only for spring, which is usually where some of the severe weather occurs AND I think it could be worthy of mention on it. I would like to see why you think so and fyi in the future try to make a longer reason for the proposed deletion. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I disagree with the rationale. There are soft and hard definitions for what qualifies as spring, and there are meteorological and astronomical definitions. This article complies with the astronomical definition. There are issues with the article, and you may have a case for deletion based on those issues, but again, I do not believe this rationale is sound or that WP:SYNTH applies. Dustin (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, not only do I not believe that WP:SYNTH does not apply, it simply 'does not' apply. Read: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." I cannot come up with any way someone could construe this as applying to the discussed article. Dustin (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete ~ I can't find some sources but there no news. it's might hoax would be speedy delete. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 00:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? The subject is not a hoax. Spring objectively exists. Dustin (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also adding on, how is there "no news". There is definitely media coverage on the tornado outbreaks as well as tropical storms Bonnie, Colin and Danielle. Therefore, I oppose the deletion. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nobody's saying spring doesn't exist. Junior5a is questioning whether the existence of spring requires an encyclopedia article about every individual year's own proprietary spring as a named standalone topic, not whether spring exists as a concept. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Junior5a pretty clearly said "it's might hoax." I think that sounds more like what I said than what you said, in that it seems to question the existence of 2016 spring in North America. Dustin (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Firstly, I'm pretty sure that English is not Junior5a's first language, based on how they expressed their thought — so they can't be held to the same "clarity of expression" standards by which you or I would be judged. And secondly, nobody would ever seriously claim that the basic existence of spring was a hoax — there's simply no serious reason to believe anybody actually thinks such an easily disproven thing. So I stand by my interpretation. Plus I've been around Wikipedia for about a decade longer than you have, so I have a lot more experience in trying to suss out what people really meant in circumstances where they might have expressed themselves unclearly. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I suppose this could fall under Wikipedia's role as an almanac. However, I see no similar pages (2016 European Spring or 2015 North American spring for instance). I think this should be discussed more generally with the relevant Wikiprojects, rather than at a specific AfD. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the fact that seasons exist does not inherently mean that we require four separate articles per year about each individual season. The winter articles are not technically about the winter itself — they're about the snowstorm and ice storm record, in ways that are more analogous to an already-existing and already-accepted scheme of organizing spring/summer storms through things like Tornadoes of 2016 and 2016 Atlantic hurricane season. We simply don't need to start creating a novel scheme of "2016 spring/summer/fall" articles as an alternate organization of content that we already have in other places — the notability is in the storm record, not the mere fact that spring, summer, fall and winter exist, and the storm record content is already organized as storm records. Technically, the winter articles should be renamed as "winter storm season" instead of just "winter" — but the winter articles already have their spring/summer/fall analogues through the "tornadoes" and "hurricane season" sets, so they don't need to be matched by "spring", "summer" or "autumn" articles that duplicate the existing content. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is just a (quite arbitrary) list of severe weather events that happened to occur during the spring season, and as Bearcat mentioned, we already have existing organizational structures for tornado and tropical cyclone articles. The most important issue is that the scope of the article is simply unworkable - this article discusses "spring" in purely meteorological terms, but lots of other things happened in spring 2016, too (no mention is made of any astronomical, agricultural, social, political, sports, fashion, economic, or academic occurrences, to name a few). – Juliancolton | Talk 19:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:N. There's nothing per se peculiar or special about any given spring season on any given continent. Notable meterological events are covered in the respective tornado and hurricane season articles, which are part of long established and organized article series. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand arguing notability, but as I said above, I don't see how anyone can make an argument of WP:SYNTH. There aren't any unpublished conclusions being reached in the subject article. Dustin (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The SYNTH is in taking a bunch of unrelated weather events and trying to unite them into one artificial topic. If we're the only source that draws a link between all the listed events, that's the very definition of original synthesis. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just a series of weather events, most of which are independently notable enough to have their own articles anyway. This article serves no function, and I'm not sure it ever could. It'll likely stay in the current shape it's in, and it'll just encourage other continental season articles to be made, none of which really should have articles. The title doesn't mention meteorology at all, so an independent reader might assume it's about the season in the continent, not exclusive to the weather. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Both delete !votes are WP:IDHT, Anyway overwhelming consensus to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of things named after Donald Trump[edit]

List of things named after Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivia. This is redundant to Googling "trump -election". KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename "List of assets owned by The Trump Organization and remove portions of this article that do not correlate. Otherwise, no, delete. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 04:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no real rationale presented by the nom. Technically ALL articles on here are redundant to Googling the topic. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems utterly pointless to me. As noted above, is it clear they're actually named after Donald Trump and not some Trump corporation? From a WP:GOLF point of view, it seems unlikely anyone would be interested in a list of golf clubs/courses with the word Trump in the name. Nigej (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would seem to be a bona fide member of Category:Lists of things named after politicians. Now, it's obviously unusual in that all the entries to date would probably have so named prior to him becoming the Republican nominee for President of the United States, but I don't see how that invalidates the list. And yes any pruning can be done via normal editing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts and Shawn. --SI 17:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – "Things named after Donald Trump", as trivial as it may sound, does seem to be a notable topic. See: an elementary school, things, companies, even burgers and a chair have generated coverage because they were named after Donald Trump. Appears therefore to be a valid list topic. Not all of these are assets owned by The Trump Organization, although most are. Mz7 (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After the arguing to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair, I would like to temporarily retract this argument to think about it a little more. I think DarthBotto's line of thinking is definitely worth considering. Mz7 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ...and an easy keep too. I see guidelines like WP:CSC and WP:LISTN that indicate this list is alright. Plus, the AfD reason is not a valid one at all.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Delete because these are not "Things named after Donald Trump" but rather things that "Carry the Trump brand". Some of them are things that the Trump organisation licensed, some that it owns and / or built, but they are not all named after Donald Trump. Otherwise, they would say "Donald Trump Tower" for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This was forked out to unclutter the main Donald Trump article some time ago. If we delete, it will reappear in short order. Besides, it's a handy summary that does no harm. — JFG talk 08:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, variety of things in this list, everything from brands to buildings and everything in between. Clearly meets WP:NLIST. May need re-titling, current one is a bit stiff.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NLIST requirements.LM2000 (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if re-named: I agree with DarthBotto. I think this would work better as a list of his assets than how it is currently being used. Plus the deletion argument is invalid; given how prominent his position in politics has become, one would likely want to know about his business activities. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the back story on the split, but prune of entities without articles, as in only listing the cities. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. It is also a valid list, considering how loose the criteria for lists is currently in Wikipedia. Ceosad (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current name -- I'm seeing coverage that discusses how, for example, home owners are petitioning to have their "Trump" buildings renamed, due to concerns about valuations or (even) their friends not coming to visit because of the name on the front of the building. There have been polls that asked people "Would you be more likely or less likely to purchase things / stay at hotels that bear Trump's name"? So "things named after Donald Trump" is becoming more of a topic of its own. See for example:
I believe this would be a continued topic of discussion after the election, so it's worth preserving the list as it's currently named. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ismail Abdi (Siciid Morgan)[edit]

Mohamed Ismail Abdi (Siciid Morgan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. WP:A7 speedy was removed by another editor. Drm310 (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable person who does media production. Largoplazo (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, User:Doc James restored the page to let this AfD run its course. --Drm310 (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable individual who just graduated from college. I also have to say the article is so horribly written it would need to be totally destroyed and started over if he were notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn per nominator. Nominator mentioned the speedy was declined, but it appears to me that the justified speedy was removed by another member of a mutual admiration society, who has also created a poor autobio, and is known to the creator and subject of this article. - Brianhe (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After looking at the contributions of this group of accounts and discussing with User:Doc James, I have opened a SPI case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hassan Dhuhul Laabsaalax. --Drm310 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable and spam. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this was in fact speedy deleted but restored, but it's obvious there's nothing at all here close for an actual article, and considering the user's SPI, there's nothing else to suggest it's negotiable. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:BOLDly redirected to Arindam Bhattacharya. (non-admin closure) ansh666 22:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arindam Bhattacharyya[edit]

Arindam Bhattacharyya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicate of Arindam Bhattacharya (politician) Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 03:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Alexander Allen[edit]

Tyler Alexander Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find evidence of the subject meeting WP:ACADEMIC. Adam9007 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, almost certainly speedy. This is an autobiography article about a PhD student containing extensive promotional passages such as about the subject's TedX talk "where he discusses the power of positivity". Although the author has co-authored a paper, for which according to the article he is best-known and represents "a fundamental process...that led to a better understanding of how therapeutic cells exit the circulation when injected or infused into the blood", it was published only three months ago, and has yet to be cited. (It has received a few write-ups in medical news reports, but none I've seen mention or interview this person, only the corresponding author Ke Cheng, an associate professor at NCSU who is the subject's PhD supervisor.) The author claims that "Additional references from non-primary sources have been added." - but this is simply false since every source in the article is authored or co-authored by the subject or their employer NCSU. Blythwood (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blythwood, except it should definitely not have been speedied. Vanity page of young researcher, WP:TOOSOON. Wikishovel (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should not be Deleted The topic of the article is a published scientist who has notable accomplishments, and falls in the WP:ACADEMIC criteria: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline." The article does not promote the person in anyway, it simply lists unbiased facts about him. The article does mention some of his notable activities such as his TEDx talk, but a TEDx talk is not promotion but is a prestigious presentation that should be noted. Many other articles on people reference their TED talks, and it is not considered promotional. The fact the discovery of Angiopellosis is recent does not detract from its noteworthy importance to the field of science/biology. It has not been published long enough for it to be cited, but as any published scientist knows, the process of even getting an article published is extremely rigorous within itself and can takes months to years. Additionally, a published articles in a academic journal is not a primary source, and is even stated as a relaiable source in the wikipedia guidelines. The author has is the first author of the published paper, and has several mentions linking him to the discovery ===[[:Tyler Alexander [1]Allen]]=== [2] [3] Taallen92 (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)taallen92[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 01:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5EI-ZvhBps. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ http://www.ascb.org/kaluzaprizes/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ Allen, Tyler A.; Gracieux, David; Talib, Maliha; Tokarz, Debra A.; Hensley, M. Taylor; Cores, Jhon; Vandergriff, Adam; Tang, Junnan; De Andrade, James B.M.; Dinh, Phuong-Uyen; Yoder, Jeffrey A.; Cheng, Ke (2017). "Angiopellosis as an Alternative Mechanism of Cell Extravasation". Stem Cells. 35 (1): 170–180. doi:10.1002/stem.2451. PMC 5376103. PMID 27350343.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satyajeet Tambe[edit]

Satyajeet Tambe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is local politician and has some passing mentions in few sources. And that is precisely because he is son of MLC Sudhir Tambe, and nephew of Balasaheb Thorat - but notability is not inherited. He contested 2014 state election and lost - Fails WP:NPOL. Lastly, doesn't qualify for WP:GNG as well for lacking substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources.

This news article (published by Times of India) calls him - "Congress legislator Satyajeet Tambe", which I tried to cross-check and found that it is a typo (they meant to write "Sudhir Tambe"). Anup [Talk] 21:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads like a Linkedin entry, full of words like "passionate". Bacially it says he has potential to become notable, so even the article itself shouts the subject is not notable at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which everybody who exists is entitled to have an article. Nothing here is a strong claim of notability, and the article is stuffed with POV descriptors like "passionate" and "promising". No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he accomplishes something that actually gives him an WP:NPOL pass — but nothing here gets him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk)
  • Strong Delete-Fails WP:NOTABILITY.This is not a PR platform,as said above!Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 14:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to Throw a Successful Party[edit]

How to Throw a Successful Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Godara clan[edit]

Godara clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE. Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lohia (caste)[edit]

Lohia (caste) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that they are WP:NOTABLE. Unclear if there is a suitable redirect. Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Another rubbish article from Jat clans. All these articles must be discussed and deleted as soon as possible. Failure of WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep using this rationale even when the article makes no mention of Jat. I really think you need to start actually reading the things and doing a proper WP:BEFORE instead of ramping up this campaign. - Sitush (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there appears possibly to be an alternate spelling - Lohiya - but almost all potentially reliable hits on Google, JSTOR and Questia relate to Ram Manohar Lohia and not to some social group. Even the links I give are but passing mentions. - Sitush (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V; no sources listed and none provided at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete as yet another example of the several articles, yet there's never any actual information or sources, therefore unacceptable and unimprovable. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Trace of 1410[edit]

Yung Trace of 1410 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No credible, secondary sources besides Twitter and Soundcloud. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I made the page can I have a few days to find and add sources to the article?--TaylorSwift2000 (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi TaylorSwift2000, afds usually last for 7 days to give editors time to look for sources/improve an article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. (non-admin closure) JDDJS (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Armstrong[edit]

Liz Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person. And even if she was notable, the article would have to be completely rewritten from scratch due to the fact that it is written like a résumé with strong POV. JDDJS (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable journalist/blogger. The article is also so badly written in such an opaque style that is also overly promotional and full of horrible wording, that we would have to entirely delete it and start over if she were notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a copy of http://www.liz-armstrong.com/bio/. I'll tag the article accordingly. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Average attendances of professional sports teams in the United States and Canada[edit]

Average attendances of professional sports teams in the United States and Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been flagged as a concern for almost 5 years and no improvements have been made in that time. Please refer to WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT; the list requires constant updating and is indiscriminate; there could, theoretically, be an infinite number of entries to the list. The list also fails the wider criteria of WP:GNG. So many questions can be asked. Why are USA and Canada grouped together for this article? What demand is there for this article? Is this merely just to prove that NFL has the highest attendance? Spiderone 18:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to agree with the nom, who covers the reasons well enough. What is worse is how it is treated as a static number when attendance varies greatly from year to year, making the information in the article less than useful and possibly misleading. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting statistics, but not what WP is for according to policies noted in nomination. PS the NFL has bigger stadiums than most other sports and teams only play once a week for a limited season.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete interesting, yes. Useful? helpful? notable? Nope. Further, stadiums change configuration and design, so "average attendance" is not even a helpful measure. Maybe "average annual attendance by year" -- I'd say this list fails not only notability standards but... ummm... SOMETHING that might have to do with valid statistical modeling and interpretation. I don't think it's "original research" but it's just not statistically sound to even report this data as it is presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From its article: "NASCAR's Director of Security stated that the company holds 17 of the Top 20 regularly attended single-day sporting events in the world."Thoughtmonkey (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gorellik[edit]

Gorellik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 03:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nihal Mehta[edit]

Nihal Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable executive. The refs are the usual pr and notices, and none of them give substantial coverage. Not would one expect it, as the accomplishments are minor and the awards about ass minor as they come. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Below are a couple of sources that provide significant coverage about the subject (the first two). The sources from AdAge and TechCrunch also provide some background information. North America1000 12:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With over 15 years experience in marketing technologies through founding five startups and investing in 100+ since 1999, Nihal Mehta is a noted expert..." Etc.
Strictly a marketing brochure for this unremarkable executive. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unconvinced he passes notability muster on the evidence, even given the sources Northamerica1000 found - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt (given the past G11 speedy, which ultimately saw the article simply restarted now, therefore showing the sheer blatancy) as the nomination is exact with how this is entirely PR advertising and it's something we are quite familiar with, therefore that also means we make no compromises with advertising. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Budli.in[edit]

Budli.in (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable firm. Some of the refs look impressive, but the impressive ones such as the BBC are not about the company, but about recycling in India generally. The awards are trivial, the article section promotional. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning Delete An idea might be useful for this one. But again is there any news coverage which covered this startup alone like BBC, Business Standard or Live mint. These are general article covered by popular Indian news media, but hard to find notable coverage for this one Light2021 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by all means as the nomination is exact with the concerns and we should especially be careful and aware of these subjects, where they are notorious for "pay for" news and are heavily involved with always advertising, none of that article itself actually amounts to substance or convincing, instead it advertises what the company would publish itself; the clear advertising contributions and account also emphasizes it. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha 5 (Power Rangers)[edit]

Alpha 5 (Power Rangers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. The sources in the article contain nothing relevant. TTN (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Obviously a merging into the parent article could be discussed in the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 10:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1632 characters (fictional)[edit]

List of 1632 characters (fictional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Parent article was deleted ages ago. All of the problems described in the multiple issues template are pretty major. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1632 series is the parent article, as should have been clear from the intro sentence to this list. What was deleted was a complementary list of the real historical figures that appear as characters in this series; this list is of the wholly fictional characters that are an invention of the series. postdlf (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Series is notable and a list of fictional characters is useful in the same manner as similarly-situated series. At this point a list of the characters would bog down the main article. Deletion of the non-fictitious characters was a different situation. Montanabw(talk) 20:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Montanbw's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - If the character list would bloat the main article, cut it down until it doesn't bloat it. There is no particular reason there has to be a separate list, which will just get filled with over-detailed plot information. TTN (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Underwood[edit]

Sharon Underwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:1E Brianga (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Melomud[edit]

Anna Melomud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Melomud is really only notable for being Miss Ohio USA. The coverage in the plain dealer does highligh her pre-med student status, and so does Columbus Magazine. However the Columbus Magazine cover was the 4th year in a role that Miss Ohio USA was given a place on that cover, so her science role is not the key. Anyway she is clearly not notable for being a pre-med student. I did find indications she studied medicine possible at Case Western Reserve University, and that she now has an MD, but nothing on the level of reliable source coverage of this. The coverage of her as Miss Ohio USA does not really stretch beyond Ohio. There is nothing to suggest she rises above the notability threshold. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable, nor needed for stand alone article. She is already listed in the Miss Ohio USA article which is enough. Kierzek (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- per WP:OUTCOMES, these pages are routinely deleted. No other life & career achievements listed. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chris Cornell. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scream Tour[edit]

Scream Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable nor referenced Rathfelder (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge An event not independently notable or deserving of it's own page. Instead it needs merged with the Chris Cornell page. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chris Cornell; not independently notable per available sources. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. I don't see any reason for a merge as the article is currently an almost entirely unreferenced essay, listing just one source which is primary. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chris Cornell as stated above; otherwise just not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universe (journal)[edit]

Universe (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator whoc claims notability because the journal has a Nobel laureate on its editorial board (WP:NOTINHERITED). That said laureate has published two articles in this journal is also irrelevant, as there are no independent sources discussing the importance of those articles for the journal. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ADS database returns you the number of reads, downloads and citations gained by the journal's articles so far. Altmetrics gives you a measure of the buzz around the Smoot's papers. By the way, Universe seems to me notable not only because of Smoot's inclusion in its Editorial Board, but also for the other members in it like Sergei Odintsov, Gron, and others. Redwheel (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, let us consider, say Physics Essays, which has its article in Wikipedia staying quiet. Do you really conclude that Physics Essays is more notable than Universe? Please, let me know. Thank you. Redwheel (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, does really Wikipedia keep a journal like Physics Essays and cancel a journal with a Nobel Laureate? If so, well, I am clearly in the wrong place. Redwheel (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Concerning board members, please read WP:NOTINHERITED. As for Smoot's articles, ADS indicates that one of them was cited once (by a non-peer reviewed paper). Altmetrics doesn't say much. Any publisher worth its mettle knows how to drive that up. Concerning other articles, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, if one has not the competences to judge on such topics, she/he should avoid to deal with them. This seems just the case to me. Have you checked the reads, the downloads and the citations of all the articles in Universe? ADS allows to inspect also the journals. Could you, please, answer my question without hiding behind Wikipedia's bureacracy? Do you really want to keep Physics Essays and delete Universe? Have you the competeneces to judge the content, the quality and the standing of the Editorial Board, the authors and the articles in Physics Essays (it is just an example of a low-quality journal which had an Impact Factor) and in Universe? From your points, I do not think so, and I think it would be more honest if you could move to a topic you feel more comfortable with. Thank you. Redwheel (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether you or I have any competence or not to judge the quality of the articles in any journal is absolutely immaterial, because our judgment has no bearing on whether this journal is notable. Using our own judgment would be original research, which is not allowed on WP. Instead, we use reliable sources independent of the subject to establish whether a subject is notable enough to be included here. Hope this explains (and please read the linked guidelines/essays/policies). --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the independent reliable sources allowing you to keep any other journal's articles in Wikipedia? I do not see them anywhere. Please, help me to discover them in, say, Astrophysics and Space Science, etc. etc. Not to say in Physics Essays.... Thank you. Redwheel (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a resume: you ignore the coverage provided by Altmetrics just because it does not fit your decision; you ignore the coverage by ADS (reads, downloads, citations to journal's articles) just because it does not fit your decision; you declare that it is not important to have competences to judge the standing of an academic journal about its notability or not (!); you block a priori any discussion pertaining dozens of other articles in Wikipedia dealing with other journals based on exactly the same kind of information I provided here for Universe; you does not seem able to realize that it is somewhat comic keeping Physics Essays, which has not even an IF, and wanting to cancel Universe with a Nobel Laureate in its editorial board. Well, it is enough for me. I cannot waste my time in ″discussing″ with such kind of people like you. So, good bye. Please, you may delete my article at any moment. If this is Wikipedia, well it is much better to stay out of it. Cheers. Redwheel (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fantastic! Now, you have also tried to cancel the fact that Smoot is in the board of Universe by stating that it is a trivial membership! God is nothing with respect to you, sure! Redwheel (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gurpreet Kaur Chadha[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gurpreet Kaur Chadha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previous similar version of this article was taken to AfD in early October and had gathered several opinions for deletion before it was speedy-deleted as promotional. It has now been reposted so I think this AfD should be seen through to a persisting decision. Repeating my previous view: "The sources are poor and my searches are not finding better. Neither her public activity nor the coverage indicates encyclopaedic notability." AllyD (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still a non-notable low level politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is all my fault that we are seeing another afd; I shouldn't have speedied previous article. I'm really very sorry!
Coming back to afd discussion: Subject has some passing mentions in few reliable sources but those are not what Wikipedia seeks to write an encyclopedia article. We need "substantial" coverage in multiple reliable sources and that exactly is lacking in present case. Subject is an unelected politician, thus fails WP:NPOL, and as for socialite, doesn't have the kind of coverage previously mentioned, thus fails, WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 20:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not state that she's a holder of a notable political office, but stakes her notability as a politician solely on being a local party organizer. That's not something that gets a person over WP:NPOL, however. Her role with the Punjabi Global Foundation is sourced exclusively to primary sources and a photo of her at a gala event, not to any substantive reliable source coverage about her in that role, so it doesn't assist notability at all. And the other claims here, "actress", "socialite" and "producer", are merely asserted and not even explained or sourced — actress is parked on a blurb about her birthday party which doesn't actually state that she's an actress, and producer is parked on another mere photograph. All of which means that nothing here is a substantive claim of notability at all, and none of the sourcing is adequate to claim WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 03:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolai Frederik Bonnén Rossen[edit]

Nicolai Frederik Bonnén Rossen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional BLP. Not notable. No external refs. Rathfelder (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found these sources on a cursory Google search: [1], [2], [3], [4]. At the very least, it is a case of BLP1E. Anup [Talk] 03:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Parker (producer)[edit]

Nick Parker (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An internet personality and music producer fails to pass WP:GNG can't find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support WP:NBIO. GSS (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Bluemoonnight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Added more sources, he does more than just producing music and for the music style he works with there's enough accomplishment references included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A59x (talk • contribs) 02:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@A59x: Sorry mate the subject still fails so meet the requirements and having profile on ESPN doesn't make someone notable it must satisfy WP:NSPORT. GSS (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The music genre is already small it's not rap it's not rock or pop so you can't expect MTV coverage, the artist in discussion is notable enough in his field as per Google search. The submitted links are as good as any coverage an artist that produces trance music could ever get especially at that young age. The best part about Wikipedia is that it's not static encyclopedia and it can always be updated. The article fits if not average at least the minimum requirements to pass as relevant especially that there are articles with less relevannce in terms of references that are already active here and been that way for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A59x (talk • contribs) 09:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@A59x: Google search result showing nothing to support the notability rather than some unreliable and user generated sources which are not acceptable. GSS (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reliability relevance ratio is per field, we're not on the same page here, you're expecting MTV coverage for a Trance artist which is impossible. --A59x (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Seigo[edit]

Aaron Seigo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable by our standards. Of all the sources in the article, only one is acceptable as a secondary sources contributing to notability--this interview. A Google search delivers a few things like this and this, but these are not the kind of sources that add to notability. Almost all the other links in the article are to his employer. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG - not enough third-party coverage out there to deem him noteworthy of a WP:BLP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Procter & Gamble brands. MBisanz talk 23:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Safeguard (soap)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Safeguard (soap) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Product fails to meet the notability guidelines; there is a lack of in-depth coverage of the subject. The article is un-referenced and the article says nothing more than it exists and has been advertised. A run-of-the-mill product. Previous AFD in 2006 made no policy-based argument nor provided any references to establish notability. MB 15:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC) MB 15:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Williams (DJ)[edit]

Mike Williams (DJ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable DJ that fails WP:MUSIC, the sources are mainly WP:PRIMARY except for an interview in Dutch. Checked nl.wiki - no article. Karst (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete,I think we should let this page exist on Wikipedia as there is much good scope in future regarding Mike Williams. He is new and becoming popular day by day. So we should not delete this article. AKJatt (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination by sock of site-banned user. Favonian (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World's busiest airport[edit]

World's busiest airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Chicachicaboomer

Keep - the article is well enough sourced to indicate both that the topic is notable, and that it has been considered so since 1947. The topic has been covered in reliable sources as varied as American Aviation, CNN, and The Guardian, so its status cannot be in much doubt. It has certainly been covered in many other publications; a quick look yields USA Today, The Telegraph, Fortune and the BBC. It is generally best to look for sources before asserting an article is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Puma[edit]

Bobby Puma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability under the WP:MUSIC criteria. No awards, charting productions or notable sources. Karst (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Lovewisdom[edit]

Johnny Lovewisdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO due to lack of reliable sources. Looks like a lot of sources but some seem not reliable or do not cover this person in depth. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sphinx (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Sphinx (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails to establish notability. The mythological basis itself is not enough to establish an article. TTN (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Nick Russel Oniot[edit]

Murder of Nick Russel Oniot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Falls under WP:BLP1E even though titles as the crime rather than the individual, notability of even the one crime is questionable. A terrible crime, but people are murdered every day and the coverage and aftermath is not significant enough to justify inclusion, else we would be flooded with similar articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS MIDAS HOTEL 20 PLEASE IM BEGGING YOU DO NOT DELETE THE ARTICLE ABOUT NICK RUSSEL ONIOT. I WANT EXPRESS IN THIS WORLD THAT THERE'S NO HUMANITY. THERE'S A HUMAN BUT N HUMANITY. THIS ARTICLE CONTAIN THAT THE STUDENT STABBED 18 TIMES WITHOUT ANYONE HELP HIM UNTIL HIS LAST BREATH. AND THE ARTICLE CONTAINS A REFERENCE AND NOT A COPYRIGHT FROM THE OTHER SITE. THANK YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MidasHotel20 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Joker[edit]

Tha Joker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No Independent notability. Abbottonian (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per [{WP:GNG]]. Lack of third-party coverage makes it difficult to deem him worthy of his own WP:BLP
  • Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riggi & Piros[edit]

Riggi & Piros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable dance duo that has released one single; lacks sources and does not meet the criteria under WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing actually convincing for applicable notability and the one source is simply a local news article, showcasing what there is to say about them. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party (British DJs)[edit]

Third Party (British DJs) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to find any reliable secondary sources. No indication of notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC entirely. Karst (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - managed to find a single third party source, but it's in the Liverpool Echo, a locally distributed paper with no national coverage. Clearly no 'widespread' coverage and no charting singles or albums - as such fails WP:NMUSIC. Nikthestunned 12:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO. Apart from the Liverpool Echo article above, there is this interview with a Brazilian website, but I don't know if it is an RS. Virtually all the references are either to the likes of iTunes to show the track is available for download, or passing references in non-RS websites saying "Third Party's new record is out now" – none of it demonstrates notability. Armada Records is a Dutch label that distributes the group's records so it is not an independent source. Richard3120 (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Woah! This is a highly notable duo. They've made huge strides in their career. Their song with Martin Garrix, "Lions in the Wild" is actually a charting song, peaking on at least 5 global charts. This page should stay. Infopage100 (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I feel like me and my work is being targeted here. >:( Infopage100 (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Infopage100, we need evidence that they are "highly notable", and we haven't been able to find it so far. "Lions in the Wild" only appears to have charted in France, and at number 125 – the Dutch chart position appears to be fictitious. So I don't know what the "five global charts" are... if you are talking about iTunes or Beatport, they aren't considered acceptable charts on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ok @Richard3120:, I was including iTunes and Beatport charts. But regardless, even if you do omit those unofficial charts, the song did technically chart. It peaked at 52 in The Netherlands and at 125 in France. The song also gained over 11 million streams on Spotify. I would also like to note that they (Third Party), have a song titled, "Everday of my Life" that has gained over 2 million streams on Spotify. Infopage100 (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutchcharts.nl site has no record of that song making the main Dutch chart – it seems to have made no. 15 on the Single Tip chart and no. 27 on the Dance chart. Richard3120 (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well @Richard3120:, according to Martin Garrix's discography page, the song charted on the aforementioned Dutch chart. Maybe someone confirmed incorrect information, but you can see for yourself: Martin Garrix discography. Infopage100 (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that article is wrong, unfortunately - I've found some other incorrect chart positions in that discography as well. Richard3120 (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I recently added some chart info, and from what I've read, that makes this article good enough for WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. So this article is good enough for me. I may be new, but I know what Im talking about. Keep. >>>AppleCrumby16 (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the criteria at WP:MUSIC. As Richard pointed out we have to be careful with certain chart positions. As it stands there is one collaboration that has reached the lower echelons of the charts. This, I'm afraid, really is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The real problem here is the sources. They are all WP:PRIMARY, such as Youtube, Soundcloud, Beatport and Facebook links. There is one reference to a review and it does not work. Karst (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the false Dutch chart position, and corrected the positions on the Martin Garrix discography article as well. Richard3120 (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I've added some really good in depth interviews and references to make this page better.

http://houseplanet.dj/2010/10/15/interview-with-third-party-rising-stars-from-size-records/ http://www.manchestersfinest.com/people/third-party-interview/ http://www.studioparisnightclub.com/djs-custom/third-party/ These should do good in making the article good. >>>AppleCrumby16 (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)<<<[reply]

In future, try not to add bare URLs to the article. Also look at at reliable sources. The houseplanet one is a fluff piece, Smash Hits style that cites their favourite things. The Manchester finest does the same. Studio paris is a press release. All this adds very little and does nothing to prove that they are notable. Karst (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first two links are interviews, which are primary sources (biographies require secondary sources). The third link is a promo for a nightclub. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Like I did a few edits earlier with somebody else i also added >>>further reading<<< to the page. With these links:

http://www.studioparisnightclub.com/djs-custom/third-party/ http://www.ixdaily.com/the-buzz/third-party-talks-size-records-tour-why-they-are-done-bangers-1

And I added some external links:

http://www.magneticmag.com/2015/07/listen-third-party-exclusive-dj-mix/#! https://m.soundcloud.com/thirdpartymusic/sa-radio-1-third-party-interview-guest-mix https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63RkQRomnFo (The last ones not to good i knoe). >>>AppleCrumby16 (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)<<<[reply]

If you know that they are not good, why did you add them? Please look under external links what can be added there. Thanks. Karst (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is a standard bio, probably supplied by the musicians. The second link is an interview, which is a primary source (bios need secondary sources). The YouTube link violates copyright policy, per WP:YOUTUBE, because it has a standard YouTube copyright. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: AppleCrumby16 is a  Confirmed sock puppet of Infopage100.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case then AppleCrumby16's "keep" vote should be struck. Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: for possible admin intervention in that regard. Karst (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out the two votes, but the closing admin will know what to do. Bbb23, thanks for checking. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn - Although there's a delete !vote present the Keep !voter provided sources which I'm happy wit so closing as SK/Witdrawn (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 13:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luísa Beirão[edit]

Luísa Beirão (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable model, The entire article is unsourced and most sources on Google are mentions and aren't anything substantial, Her article on the Portuguese wiki cites no sources either, Fails MODEL & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 17:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most Google hits are just mentions, but there's enough coverage specifically dedicated to her (e.g. mentioning her in the headline) this year alone to suggest notability; the height of her career would have been at the turn of the century, so Google is unlikely to give us the full picture. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of what I'm finding are just mentions and you can't make an article out of any of them, There may well be sources offline however that would only be a guess and we shouldn't just keep articles on the basis of "I'm sure there's some offline), She's been a model since 1999 and therefore there should be substantial coverage online as well as off, I can't speak inre to offline sources however online is just mentions which is extremely poor for someone who's been modelling for what 15 years?..... –Davey2010Talk 01:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how to format this, so taking it back to the left margin.
  1. Diário de Notícias (a major newspaper), headline "Luísa Beirão em forma na 'Men's Health'" - 29 Jan 2016. When a national newspaper makes an article out of her doing a shoot for Men's Health, even though it's only 3 short paragraphs, my guess would be she's newsworthy in her own right.
  2. Diário de Notícias (again), she's only mentioned and pictured, but the headline "Quando o termómetro sobe... as famosas refrescam-se" (when the temperature rises ... the famous cool off) indicates this is a survey of swimwear of the famous; so a direct statement of her notability in a national newspaper
  3. GQ Portugal, "Portugal Fashion em 125 imagens", "mentions" her as one of three nomes famosos pela catwalk, which I'm guessing means something like "famous names on the catwalk", so another direct statement of notability - 18 Oct 2016
  4. Lux, headline "Vídeo e fotos: Luísa Beirão é estrela no desfile de Diogo Miranda" - 17 Oct 2016; doesn't say much about her, but as the headline indicates, it's a story providing photos and videos of her doing her job
  5. Lux itself is some sort of fashion/celebrity/gossip magazine, and searching its archives on her name gives eight pages of dedicated coverage going back to 2008, including a profile of her (16 Aug 2016). Whether Lux is a reliable source is a question for someone who knows about the Portuguese media scene.
  6. Move Notícias, headline "Luísa Beirão troca a moda pelo desporto" -16 Oct 2016
  7. Activa, headline "Portugal Fashion: As 'Demoiselles' de Diogo Miranda (com a presença especial de Luísa Beirão)" - 19 Oct 2016; even though she isn't more than mentioned in the article, putting "com a presença especial de Luísa Beirão" in the headline suggests she is in some way notable.
  8. Observador (a major newspaper) - 14 Oct 2016: not in the headline but "mentioned" four times in the course of the article
  9. Vogue Portugal, just a photo of her, in the "paparazzi" section, headed "Falamos das pistas de estilo que Luísa Beirão nos deixa nesta imagem - e que são tudo o que precisávamos de saber sobre o que vestir num festival de música." Just a "mention", but a major fashion magazine thinks it's worth dedicating a page to a picture of her chilling at a music festival.

This isn't some aspiring wannabe, she's been in Men's Health (and a national newspaper reported on the fact), Vogue Portugal, GQ Portugal – I'm no expert on models (I only ended up commenting here because from time to time I scan AfDs for foreign-looking names out of a concern for Wikipedia:Systemic bias) but I would suggest this constitutes multiple major appearances. This is just from two pages of the most recent hits on Google News, for someone whose modelling career was at its peak over a decade ago. It's not a "guess" that there would be offline sources, it's a moral certainty. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow thank you Andreas Philopater, Having looked through the cites, 1,3-6 can easily be used so I'll add those to the article, I just want to state tho there's no systematic bias here - I simply nominate on the notability/sources (or lack of), I've nominated many British actresses/actors too, I have to respectfully disagree with your last statement - Unless you have books, newspaper articles etc etc on this BLP then you cannot say "it's a moral certainty" - At the end of the day it's a wild guess, But anyway thank you for finding the cites :), –Davey2010Talk 13:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ID2 (song)[edit]

ID2 (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Song by a not-notable artist which has not made it into any notable charts and has received no reviews from notable media. Note, the 'critical reception' section on the article consists entirely of press-release-style song announcements. Nikthestunned 10:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:SONG, no chart information or other details. Karst (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I say that this page should stay because it was heavily supported by very big DJs and because it is very big in the edm community.

Infopage100 (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estella Sanchez[edit]

Estella Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable; lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Her organization Sol Collective seems to have some coverage, but I can't find much coverage of her as an individual. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable activist. Article also lacks any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I have seen some good articles that feature her and her work which appears to be fairly well known. Her work with Sol [5] to steer kids away from gangs and crime has got her some hood attention. Karl Twist (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I've added some sources. Most of them seem to be local to Northern California. Sol Collective does indeed seem to have gotten some attention, but maybe the article should be about it instead of its founder. Removed mention of her awards which was unsourced. If someone can find sources for those, it might tilt this page towards a more decisive Keep. ABF99 (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC) I'm changing my !vote to redirect to Sol Collective, as most of the sources still seem to be about the organization rather than about her as a notable person. Though Karl Twist has found new sources about her as a musician, this may be a case of WP:TOO SOON. Promo language does need to be cleaned up. ABF99 (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it's all about tidying it up with better refs which are out there. It just needs work. Karl Twist (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article Subject is notable, its needs more source to be added as per "Comment census".--Blaze8724 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC) This user has been uncovered as now being used by a past advertising-only account, apparently with a new rampage of contributions. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that at the time of nomination for deletion, the article was unsourced (link). However, sources were added thereafter. Pinging Ks0stm and Johnpacklambert to revisit the discussion for an evaluation of sources added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources are too feeble to support notability. Memo to creator: BLPs are expected to reccord substantial career achievement. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment, while I have no doubt that the article meets the requirement for notability, the main issue is that it needs work. I could put in a bit myself but I'd like to see the article take better shape with other participants. Karl Twist (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a blatant advertisement alone, the first paragraph says it all and it gets worse considering nothing else followed amounts to convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment regarding the above. While I agree with SwisterTwister that it looks like an advertisement in the beginning and it is a tangled mess, I think that the article should stay and be preserved. The article was formed with the stuff in the first paragraph saying the most but in the wrong way and style. It needs to be unraveled and then re-written. Then I believe that the article can take shape. Sanchez is a musician as well and has released a recording, but I think we need to re work the article and then take a look at it to see how it sits. Worst case scenario, we can have an article for the Sol Collective, and re-direct to there, But I still maintain there is enough to keep this article. It just needs a good amount of work! Karl Twist (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promo of typical "empowering communities"-type of activist with nothing encyclopedic to say. Agricola44 (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Simply being covered briefly in context of an organisation doesn't add up to notability (BLP1E). The sources are all local sources btw and it is very obvious that this article was created with the intention to promote. I'm personally not convinced that the arts collective is notable either (with all local coverage), so I prefer to go with a delete here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 10:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anantara Angkor Resort & Spa[edit]

Anantara Angkor Resort & Spa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hotel/resort that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Mikeblas (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fizzy extraction[edit]

Fizzy extraction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is too soon for an article. It is as yet unknown how influential this will be or whether it will be known by this name. The paper was published in August and has yet has to be cited in any other published paper. There are no secondary sources in the literature. The second reference in the article is to a news article/interview in Chemical & Engineering News. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it should not be deleted. There are two references. The second one is independent of the inventor. Certainly, the concept is new but modern chemistry is developing much faster than other disciplines or even chemistry one century ago. If the name of the technique is changed later, then the article can be updated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.195.33.52 (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A little light on secondary sources, but it seems to be useful information to people interested in the subject.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's basically just sparging assisted headspace GC, both of which are very common. I suppose it could be merged into one of these pages but it's such a niche example it would probably fall foul of WP:UNDUE. To be honest it probably falls foul of several policies. Just delete it. --Project Osprey (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fizzy extraction involves two steps: dissolving the carrier gas, and the release of semivolatiles due to effervescence - very different than sparging. Moreover, fizzy extraction has not been used with GC according to the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natriumchloratum (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say its very different. To me it seems very similar to the "purge-closed loop" system used in GCMS: you use a gas to displace the volatiles from a liquid and then you analyse the gas. The technique has been around for over 30 years, it's pretty standard kit for environmental monitoring.--Project Osprey (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked a reference on "purge-closed loop" (Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. (1984) 32:429-438). In this method, one passes a gas through liquid sample to displace the volatiles (as you mention), then traps the gas-phase analytes in a sampling loop. Thus, it seems to be a different technique because there is no saturation step (the carrier gas is not dissolved in the sample under elevated pressure), and there is no effervescence step. Effervescence leads to a sudden release of volatile compounds producing a high signal. Sparging the sample cannot produce a high signal if the analyte is at a low concentration. That is why the released analytes need to be trapped in the sampling loop in the purge-closed loop technique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natriumchloratum (talk • contribs) 11:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vel Soap[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vel Soap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Product fails to meet the notability guidelines, there is a lack of in-depth coverage of the subject. The references in the article and the previous AfD discussion do nothing more than show the product exists, which is in no way sufficient to demonstrate notability. In the first AfD the article's creator argued "it's notable because it was famous and it was famous because it was advertised"; advertising is not akin to notability. Another keep !vote was asserting notability because the product has been sold for a long time. Again, this is does not confer notability. Another keep !vote was based on the product being mentioned in a book published by the Oxford Press, The Making of a Name: The Inside Story of the Brands We Buy; the only mention of the product in that book is the words '"Mar-VEL-ous" for Vel, a soap product from Colgate-Palmolive', so again, this does not confer notability - and is given as an example of a particular advertising technique, rather than the product Vel Soap itself. The last person who argued for keeping the article said "this seems convincing enough", which is essentially meaningless; perhaps the comment is so vague because it was just one of nineteen AfD !votes or comments that user made in the space of just thirty minutes (diffs: 27 May 2016, 15:59 UTC, 16:00 UTC, also 16:00 UTC, 16:04 UTC, 16:06 UTC, 16:09 UTC, 16:10 UTC, 16:11 UTC, 16:12 UTC, 16:15 UTC, also 16:15 UTC, 16:16 UTC, 16:18 UTC, Vel Soap, also 16:18 UTC, 16:22 UTC, 16:23 UTC, also 16:23 UTC, 16:26 UTC, 16:28 UTC).

As stated in the original AfD discussion, the sources in the article are:

  1. the Oxford Press book mentioned above;
  2. the book Sold on Radio: Advertisers in the Golden Age of Broadcasting, which has a transcript of a radio commercial for the product: "WARREN HULL: Vel cuts dishwashing time in half. RALPH PAUL: I'll say that's good sense, girls. Save half your dishwashing time with Vel...V-E-L...made by Colgate-Palmolive-Peet. Vel leaves no soap scum or streaky film to polish away so dishes and glassware gleam without wiping. Just wash with Vel, rinse..."; again, this is used as an example of an advertising technique, rather than discussion of the product itself;
  3. a press release from the manufacturer;
  4. a page from the manufacturer's Danish website;
  5. the book Liquid Detergents, in which the only mention of Vel is its name with fifteen other products' names in a Table titled "Antibacterial LDLD Products Marketed in Europe".

As stated above, all of this together demonstrates nothing more than Vel's existence, not notability. YSSYguy (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with nom. The product exists as do millions of others. Nothing given to establish notability. A four-sentence article could be written about almost every product. See WP:MILL MB 14:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amtv[edit]

Amtv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article, with a slight WP:NPOV issue, only citing (via an in-text link) a Youtube article claiming Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent references, and no claims of notability. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pediatrician(Disambiguation)[edit]

Pediatrician(Disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article name simply cannot stay as it is at the moment with the capital D and no space before the bracket, but maybe someone has a better idea what to do with this article as I'm at a bit of a loss. Either redirect it to Pediatrics or something like "List of pediatricians". I leave it to you to come up with something – delete, redirect or rename, as I'm not sure and I look forward to any discussion. Jared Preston (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redirection isn't really helpful here. This isn't a disambiguation, there's essentially no chance that "pediatrician" will ever need disambiguation, and this isn't correctly formatted were that otherwise. I have a low bar for "plausible search terms" and redirects are cheap, but this doesn't cross it. As for the content... I struggle to imagine that list of pediatricians would be a sustainable article with clear inclusion criteria. Category:Pediatricians by nationality has 200+ entries, and the delineation between who "counts" as a pediatrician versus who merely contributed in some way to pediatrics would be a nightmare. On the other hand, we apparently do have list of physicians, so if someone really wants to try to branch that out by speciality... it will have to be someone other than myself. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking the original deletion vote, as this article has changed both title and content during the AFD process. New response below the relist break. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure pages should be renamed during an AfD. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert/rename to pre September 29, 2016 list named "Pediatrician to the Stars", then merge/redirect, delete, redirect - Looking at the page history, this article has been renamed a number of times. It was initially created in March 2012 as a redirect page with the title "Pediatrician to the Stars". At that time it redirected to Paul Fleiss, who, in his wikipedia page, is called the pediatrician to the stars. Shortly thereafter it was changed into a list of famous pediatricians - adding Michael Cohen, Jay Gordon, and Harvey Karp - who all seem to have treated famous people or their children. The list had no lede, so without the title, the page seemed like a dab and it was renamed (improperly) in late September, and then it got weirder. The rename was undone, then redone, then this AfD started. I agree that the current title is silly, it should have a space and a lower-case "d". My vote is to delete "Pediatrician(Disambiguation)" and to merge and redirect "Pediatrician to the Stars" to List_of_physicians#Physicians_famous_for_their_role_in_television_and_the_media and redirect "List of pediatricians" to List of physicians. If this page is kept as "List of pediatricians" and isn't deleted, put a see also on "List of physicians" to "List of pediatricians" and vice-versa, redirect "Pediatricians to the Stars" to "List of pediatricians" and still delete "Pediatrician(Disambiguation)". Smmurphy(Talk) 14:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep renamed List of pediatricians and expand from Category:Pediatricians. Looks like a reasonable page move to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as renamed List of pediatricians, per sibling lists in Category:Lists of physicians, where I have now recategorized it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So do we want to keep this as a list?  Sandstein  07:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the new version of this article (as list of pediatricians), unless there's some clearly-defined criteria for qualification. Yes, yes, incomplete lists and all that. But right now, this is a list of three seemingly random medical professionals: two "celebrity" pediatricians, and Michael Cohen (who did some pediatrics work, but who most sources seem to identify as a "physician"). Few notable medical professionals work or worked exclusively in pediatrics; what is the dividing line, then, between this article and list of physicians? Conversely, a significant percentage of notable physicians had some experience with, or impact on, pediatrics. This is especially true for historical figures before the widespread establishment of pediatrics as a specialist discipline. Soranus of Ephesus is generally best known for his writings on gynecology, but a treatise on neonatal pediatrics survives. Does that make him a pediatrician? Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi studied smallpox in children. Was he a pediatrician? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And delete Category:Pediatricians while you're at it. Siuenti (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a number of reasons, I'm less concerned about the demarcation problem for categories than for lists. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above, no clearly defined criteria for inclusion. Serves no purpose. MB 15:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Walter[edit]

Damien Walter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is subject to claims of libel and a request for deletion from the subject. Looking at the first and last 'good versions' of the article, all references are from the subject himself. Biographical information is extremely limited, no notable works are mentioned, and no real claims of notability are made about the subject. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable blogger so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. Sro23 (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sro23: it can be very unfair and insulting to describe someone who is a long-term columnist with major reliable sources -- the Guardian and whatever -- as a "non-notable blogger". It turns out that he is not notable at the present time, but actually he is not merely a "blogger" like thousands of others, but indeed a professional writer and quite well regarded. Not notable, but still Wikipedia should make sure to be polite. The article should be deleted per his request and per a lack of clear evidence of Wikipedia's requirements for WP:GNG. MPS1992 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry. He's been described as both writer and blogger, so it really wasn't my intention to cause offense. Sro23 (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sro23: actually you are correct. Perhaps I was misunderstanding "blogger" to have a negative overtone that it does not actually have. I have struck my comment above. MPS1992 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. Unable to locate reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While being a columnist can be the basis of notability, we lack sources to show his writing has received the attention to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all the reasons given above. Safiel (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alas I have to go with the deletes. I saw this mooted on Jimbo's page and wanted to come up with an excuse to keep, but the versions I see going back are all based on articles *by* Walter not *about* him, save for a Guardian profile which is clearly not independent of the article subject. Recommend that if someone honestly wants to cover Guardian writers - which seems like a desirable thing we could have a place for - then instead of having a standalone article, get some kind of sources together that talk about them in general, then have a table of regular contributors, with some little blurbs around them. But note that just because someone suggests future sci-fi has gay themes in it [6] doesn't count as biographical information about the author unless you have an unambiguous self-identification, and I didn't notice any at all. I also note the closest thing to a biography I found looking in searches was a blurb on "monster hunter nation" by some writer with a personal dispute over him because he thinks the guy put words in his mouth. If someone in that camp is carrying this nonsense over to Wikipedia, please don't - to the rest of the world it looks like a tempest in a teapot, one that you should easily be able to settle with (at most) a handshake and a joint statement of clarification. Wnt (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added more references for this article and feel there may be enough for a stub article for this subject. Full disclosure, I am the original creator of this article. Going by the subject's website he seems to have written quite a few articles for some major publications. This article definitely needs to be improved and expanded, but, as I said, I feel now there's enough for a stub Wikipedia entry. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All the recently added references suffer from the same problem as the original references, as explained by Wnt and others, in that they are written by the subject and not written by others about the subject. No one here is denying that the subject has written pieces published in some popular locations. The question to answer is, who else has been discussing them? -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neptune's Trident: With article keep/delete decisions, it's important to understand WP:GNG, i.e. the phrase people came up with: "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Now usually we don't have the situation here when we invoke that last part - usually somebody has published a bunch of articles, a commercial website or whatever, and they want an article about themselves on Wikipedia to drum up their profile, and we have to tell them no, not unless we have some independent coverage of who you are so we can paint a fair(ish) picture. To have the author saying kill my article is unusual and makes the deletion less unpleasant to do. A profile by your employer or an article you wrote isn't an independent biography of your life. I think we're in "snow" delete territory now, no sense putting it off longer. Wnt (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now that everything controversial has been taken out, there's no there there. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sans prejudice At this point he appears to be more personal opinion writer than noted journalist at best. Collect (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability could probably be established given some effort, but given that the article appears to have become a magnet for vandals and wikipedia isn't really interested or capable of keeping them off it I don't think the effort would be worthwhile. A pity really. Artw (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. @Artw: I disagree with your comment that Wikipedia is not interested or incapable of maintaining this yet another article. I tried to find independent coverage of this person (google and highbeam); but found none. Do you know of any such coverage? List them here, and I'll change my !vote to keep. Anup [Talk] 03:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the effort to prove otherwise is simply not worth it on a low profile article that nethertheless draws dedicated harassers. Artw (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely failing any notability guideline. I found zero coverage of this individual in any reliable sources, and the place where he has done most of his writing (The Guardian) is not always considered a reliable source, either. About the closest thing to notability I can find is that he was awarded several years ago some stipend or other from the British government to write a book, which has yet to be produced. I see nothing which indicates any sort of notability sufficient to keep the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City Center West[edit]

City Center West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This building is a standard office building that would at least fail as a cookie cutter. As for the sources, one is the owner of the building and the other contains all buildings of any height. Dolotta (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with nom. Nothing to establish notability. It's an office building, it exists. The fact that "It is known for being the tallest building on the far west side of Madison" is hardly sufficient. WP:COOKIE. MB 15:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this content is better served as a gallery on Commons. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms of U.S. Artillery Regiments[edit]

Coats of arms of U.S. Artillery Regiments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a collection of images - a gallery - that should be on Commons, in accordance with WP:Galleries. WP:IG: One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. .. Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images.

Previous similar page deletions include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Field Army insignia of the United States Army, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations, insignia deletion discussion (and the second nom), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of U.S. Cavalry Regiments and Infantry Regiments. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not an article but a image repository as presented which Wikipedia is not; it would be a good "grouping page" for Commons. Kierzek (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- as mentioned at prior similar AfDs, this belongs in Commons. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting WP:IG, but I see it talking about an indiscriminate collection of images. This isn't indiscrimate; it's the colors for a defined selection of military units. And, the introductory paragraphs seem to me to be enough to make this more than just an image gallery. Call it WP:IAR if you have to, but I think this is a useful article worthy of keeping. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with RoySmith. This is not a indiscriminate collection of images, it is more of a visual list article. All of emblems are prominent in the corresponding article of the division, and here they are all compiled in one place. I think it add value to the project - it shows all the emblems in order and gives background. There are eight other similar articles in Category:United States military coats of arms, and I think they should all be kept. MB 23:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, WP's rules direct that while this presentation has a place, the place is in WikiCommons, not Wikipedia. if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. The place to argue WP:IG is that talk page, not here. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per the relevant previous AfDs. This would be great on Commons, but not here Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the rule is quite clear in this case, and the gallery will make perfect sense on Commons, where it will help to organize a group of related images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkinsburg police shooting[edit]

Wilkinsburg police shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Contrary to what this article has claimed, I have heard not one single shred of information about this police shooting, let alone anything about such a controversy. There has been barely any work on the article in its history (such work had stopped in August), and nothing about the content suggests noteworthiness of any shape or form. As sad as the dog's death was, you could say the same for any other police dog killing. Parsley Man (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't appear to have any lasting significance, just another run of the mill shooting incident Seasider91 (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with nom and NOTNEWS. Searching shows very little coverage. Local event. MB 19:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Two of the keep !votes (and about half of the total verbiage) were all about procedural issues, i.e. the speed at which this was re-nominated after the first AfD. They may have a point, but in the end, that's immaterial to the core question of whether the article meets our requirements.

Discounting all that, the remaining arguments to keep fail to impress me as much as the arguments to delete. I don't see any support, for example, in WP:NACTOR for the idea that a number of minor roles is the same as a major role. It looks like we don't even have definitive sources for basic biographical information.

Part of the problem here seems to be that most of the sources are in Japanese, and people are working from the automated translations. It would be good if we had reviewers who can read an evaluate the sources in the original Japanese, but we don't seem to have that. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takaya Hashi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Takaya Hashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'll repeat my previous argument: "No relevant sources found in the article OR via Google search. Subject is not clearly acclaimed for anything in particular. No news coverage found, either. I believe the subject is non-notable." Additionally, I'll list how little siginificant roles he had:

1) Toki (Hokuto no Ken - supporting)

2) Gilliam (Outlaw Star - supporting)

Subject has made no groundbreaking achievements to indicate what he is clearly known for. Currently, the article is nothing but a credits dump. Also, the only two references found in this article are merely just castlists. That, in no way asserts the subject's notability. Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not enough major roles to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The first AfD was closed on October 21st, give editors time to make improvements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was closed because there were no consensus. It does not the change my belief that the subject is not notable enough for his own article. Judging by what you've said, is John's vote irrelevant, then? Knowledge, there is no relevant sources for this seiyu that screams notability. Of course I would, without a doubt, push for a second AFD immediately. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Extremely bad form here. The AFD ran for long enough to attract a response, having been extended several times. This is an abuse of process to relist it so quickly. It's incredibly difficult to view this nomination in good faith. If this was relisted in 6months time, fine. 2 days is not an acceptable period. It should be noted that the renomination of a page with the same arguments immediately after closing is a listed reason for a speedy closure.(WP:SPEEDYCLOSE) SephyTheThird (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon? Is there any reason to keep this article without looking into the subject's notability, first? Are you people even doing any investigations? Are you doubting that I'm not contributing to the encyclopedia? Let's face it - the previous debate had no consensus; I shall not repeat myself again. Because none of you people have bothered to vote, that's why a 2nd AFD is absolutely necessary to settle this dispute once and for all. I can assure you that you won't be able to find any sources that could help assert the subject's notability, which is precisely the point of this AFD - to erase this article off of Wiki because it's not needed.
PS: The "response" that you speak of is non-existent. If it was, people would have voted. Now, do you have counterarguments regarding that? I also don't agree that using the same arguments is unacceptable. What, do I have to change my arguments, first? For what reason, and to what end? It's not necessary. I've already looked into the subejct - he is not notable, based on my anaylsis. Of course the same arguments could be applied - could you have thought of another argument in place of mine? Think about it.
PS2: "This is an abuse of process"
Abuse of process?! Literally nobody except Angus weighed in during AFD 1, and he didn't even vote. He just posted the limited significant roles the subject has voiced. Again, almost nobody even bothered to vote or weigh in their opinion on the matter. Nobody. Starting AFD 2 is by no means "an abuse of process". I agree that it's an abuse of process if more contributors feel like the article is better off around than not, and I immediately started another AFD after the initial discussion has closed. Of course, that wouldn't help my case. But it's not the same in this case, because NOBODY VOTED! AFD 1 ended with no consensus. Of course it's perfectly reasonable to demand people to express their opinion and vote, in this case. How could you possibly disagree? I don't understand. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, yes I have done my own investigations. They were not conclusive, hence why I did not offer a vote despite commenting on the original. The issue here is your aggressive nominations which despite having had several complaints and warnings about you have clearly not considered either in this nomination or your reply. What this afd is now continuing to demonstrate is your inability to perform afd's in a neutral and considered manner.
Yes, renominating an article 2 days after it closed as no consensus can be considered an aggressive attempt to delete an article because you didn't get your own way. You have not allowed any time for any further improvements or research to be conducted and have simply tried again with no change to the nomination. It also ignores the wider range of roles he has performed which are not covered in his article due to the typical bias of japanese voice actor listings towards anime roles - which is half the battle. Complaining that no one has bothered to vote, could it be because shock horror, no one had an opinion? This is not a reason to relist an article because no one had any input, that was settled through the closure of the listing.
"Settle this dispute once and for all", there is no dispute. You have nominated an article for deletion, no one saw a reason to either keep it or delete it, so move on. There is nothing to settle. It is highly inappropriate to start a new discussion two days after a listing closed and all this ranting and raving trying to defend it is just furthering the case against you. It is an abuse of process to ignore a result because it didn't result in your preferred outcome. If you list an article at AFD you should accept with good grace the outcome, if you like it or not. AFD is not for forcing your viewpoint across, you make your point in the opening and make counter arguments where necessary, and thats it. You don't pursue the matter in defiance of the outcome. That no one voted shouldn't make a difference because the process has been completed after being dragged out for three weeks. the process is complete. Relisting the article instantly because you are unhappy with the result is not respect of process and it is not helpful. You continue to demonstrate a complete lack of respect to the AFD process and I see no signs you have learned your lesson.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop talking as if you know how this works. First of all, you are disregarding John's vote, and I'm beyond offended by that. Secondly, "no consensus" is not an acceptable outcome. If you guys had any strong arguments that could help assert the subject's notability, please present them. Unfortunately, none of you had. It is an undeniable fact that because none of you had such arguments that a consensus cannot be reached. I'm 99% sure that none of you could have done anything to assert the subject's notability, so why don't you just quit while you're ahead? Do a proper and thorough investigation (in which I have) before you say anything else. I am, again, by no means abusing the process. No consensus is an unacceptable result. People should be weighing in their POV and vote in an AFD. It's how it's supposed to be. Judging by your reply, you are clearly ignorant of how the process works. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sk8erPrince: The next time you are uncivil I am bringing the matter to WP:ANI, I feel enough people on this project have had it with your snappy remarks. Consider this a warning, and cool it down please. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not particularly fussed about this AFD, but I'd like to point out that the two arguments for speedy keep given above are patently wrong.
(1) The first AfD was closed on October 21st, give editors time to make improvements.
There was no attempt at improvement during the three weeks that the first AFD was running. If improvement was ever going to happen, that would've been the most active time.
(2) It should be noted that the renomination of a page with the same arguments immediately after closing is a listed reason for a speedy closure.(WP:SPEEDYCLOSE)
Not exactly. To quote WP:SPEEDYCLOSE in full, it says Frivolous or vexatious nominations ... includes re-nominating the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected ..." An AFD closed as no consensus due to almost zero participation is not a "strong rejection" of the nominator's arguments.
I do not think the nominator has done anything wrong by starting another AFD.
While I am here, I might as well comment on notability. The Japanese wiki article on the subject has 40 references, but only to confirm the filmography. There are only 4 lines of unreferenced text in the biography section. It merely states he went to high school and junior college, then started his career in stage before moving into television. If the subject had received significant coverage in the past then the bio would have more details than that, even if they were unsourced. So I suspect the subject fails WP:GNG. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Finally - someone's bringing justice to my cause. I really needed that. Thank you again for your support. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Instantly resisting a page where the add has just completed is a frivolous nomination. Even the people who do resist articles at a later date have the decency to wait several months first. As for your first point, this ceased to be about the merits of the article as soon as it was relisted. There is a clear insistence by the nominator that this page must be purged from wikipedia just because they do not like it. it's also not just about this article as the nominator has a clear history of gaming the system and has not learnt at all from the last time they tried it.This is just the latest stage in an ongoing saga. If it was an isolated incident I would be more willing to AGF.SephyTheThird (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want the article deleted because the subject is not notable. This is exactly about the merits of the article, and I have already posted my arguments above, same or not. Sephy, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. I am by no means gaming the system. I am following by the rules, per Kobe. Now, let's look at the facts:
1) Neither you nor Knowledge have made any improvements to the article nor further asserted the subject's notability in the previous AFD.
2) Neither you nor Knowledge have read WP:SPEEDYCLOSE carefully, as Kobe has pointed out.
3) Neither you nor Knowledge are entirely focused on the AFD, instead focusing on trivial details that are proven to be a complete derailment to the main topic at hand. If you're going to voice your input, you should focus on the facts, like John and Kobe. Investigate into the subject and determine whether or not they're notable. This is, quickly frankly, what you and Knowledge did not do. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a significant body of work. Using my rule of thumb for multiple minor roles being equivalent to one major one, passes WP:NACTOR  The Steve  14:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please view the AFDs below:
-1-
-2-
-3-
Looking at these AFDs, this proves that having acculumated 2 main roles does not automatically mean WP:NACTOR, much less 1. You also cannot stack up multiple minor roles into one main role. That isn't how it works. That, and the subject does not have secondary news articles or strong references to assert his notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might not be able to stack minor roles, but I can. It works like that for me :) Also, Takaya meets NACTOR criteria 3, prolific contribution to voice acting.  The Steve  20:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have not viewed the AFDs above, then. That, or you're just making up your own guidelines. Unless you show me specifically where on Wikipedia I could find such a guideline, I can't possibly view that counterargument as valid. The smiley face also doesn't help. What is this, a casual, friendly internet chat? This is an AFD, where you determine whether or not an article gets to stay or face deletion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Viewing those AFDs tells me exactly nothing about how many minor roles they had. AfD has many edge cases to consider. For actors, we already know they don't quite meet Criteria 1, "Significant" (note: NOT starring, FYI supporting roles ARE significant, there is an Oscar for them) roles. Knowing that, *I* look to minor roles for notability, and yes, I have my own guidelines for them. I'll write an essay about them someday. I certainly think AfD should be a casual, friendly sort of place. I guess you prefer serious, hostile discussions...  The Steve  15:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'"Viewing those AFDs tells me exactly nothing about how many minor roles they had."'
That's the thing. Those AFDs are linked in this debate BECAUSE it illustrates a voice actor that has nothing but minor roles or limited significant roles lay the grounds for deletion.
"note: NOT starring, FYI supporting roles ARE significant, there is an Oscar for them"
Oh, so you're using Oscars as an argument now? Did the subject win any awards for his voice work? Heck, did he win an award that is equivalent to that of Oscar? None, as far as the eye can see. Henceforth, I deem the subject as non-notable. Reasons are already stated above.
"I have my own guidelines for them."
Ok, I see how it is. So you do admit to using your own PERSONAL guidelines as opposed to those listed on WP:NACTOR. Outrageous. You should know better on what is expected of a Wikipedian. You follow the written guidelines, and you stick by them. Your personal guidelines are, quite frankly, irrelevant in this case. Thus, I could pretty much disregard everything you've said.
"I'll write an essay about them someday."
ie. Your personal guidelines are not official, at this current stage. That means nobody has to follow them, and they mean nothing at all.
"I certainly think AfD should be a casual, friendly sort of place."
Friendly? Since when are debates friendly? You are supposed to post the facts. Let me tell you what isn't a FACT.
"multiple minor roles being equivalent to one major one" is definitely NOT a fact. You admitted to making that guideline up, and completely derailed from the official guidelines.
"I guess you prefer serious, hostile discussions..."
Serious, yes. That's how AFDs are supposed to be. They are debates, and at the end of an AFD, the admin decides whether or not the article gets deleted. Honestly, I don't think you quite understand the nature of AFDs. The fact that you made up your own guidelines as opposed to following existing ones say a lot. And no, serious does not necessarily mean hostile. I'm dedicated to my resolve, and I don't think you quite understand at all. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The man is the voice of Severus Snape for Japanese audiences, just for one. What definition of "main roles" are you using here? And has anybody saying there are no sources tried Googling the Japanese name? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One significant role does not equate to notability. Add in Toki as well? That's just two. Still not WP:NACTOR.
Snape might be one role, but it also means a role in eight hit films. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I googled his name in Japanese and it came back with 90,000 hits. But I could not see any reliable sources with biographical information on the man in the first five pages of results. How many more pages of blogs, fansites and DVD marketing pages am I supposed to look at before I find the significant coverage? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So we've already established that he (1) has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Now you tell me that he (2) has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following (so much so that it is tedious to scroll through all the thousands of blogs and fansites). What you're actually telling me is that he meets WP:NACTOR twice over. user: Thesteve has argued that he meets (3) for prolific contributions. So it looks like a hat trick, when meeting any one of the criteria would be sufficient. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No.
1) [Takaya] has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

False. The two roles listed at the very top are barely significant, and they are just supporting characters. The subject has never had a main role in his entire voice acting career in animations. His role of Severus is merely the voice of a live action actor, and that is also not notable.
2) [Takaya] has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following
Large fan base? No. Fansites don't scream notability. They are merely user generated. What we're arguing here is the subject lacking any actual notability - no siginificant news coverage of him could be found, and that's a valid argument for closing down the article.
"What you're actually telling me is that he meets WP:NACTOR twice over."
No. The two aformentioned points are wrongfully used to apply WP:NACTOR. Clearly, you have not viewed the other AFDs that are posted in this discussion. Or, you don't understand how AFDs generally work.
"user: Thesteve has argued that he meets (3) for prolific contributions."
If an actor's entire career is just supporting characters, that in no way is considered to be "prolific contributions". And I've already argued about being the foreign voice of Severus, whom was originally portrayed by an on screen actor. And even if that role was considered to be notable, that's just ONE major role. The rest are merely just Takaya being a part of the supporting cast. Now, how is that, exactly, considered to be notable? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The two aformentioned points aren't critera of WP:NACTOR"? They are, word for word, the first and the second criteria. It might be an idea to read the relevant policy before deciding what meets it.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you copied them word for word from the guidelines, that doesn't mean you correctly applied them. I disagree with how you applied them. Counterarguments were already stated above. I'm afraid YOU are the one that does not know the policy, not me. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andreas View this AFD. Akiko, despite having voiced Mega Man.exe (the lead role) in FIVE Mega Man NT Warrior series, totaling 200+ eps, still does not meet WP:NACTOR. Nowhere on Severus's Wikipeda page could we see Takaya's name listed. Comes to show you that being the voice in a foreign language dub of a live action movie series does not scream notability in any sense of the word. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the Harry Potter franchise is in any way comparable for its impact to Mega Man Nt Warrior? And that something not being mentioned in Wikipedia demonstrates that it is not notable? As AfD arguments go, that really is scraping the bottom of the barrel. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comparing the two series. I'm just listing an example where a voice actor having voiced as a main/important character, or even two of them (see the AFDs above) does not equate to notability. Also, Mega Man NT Warrior is notable - it's popular enough to get a dub produced by Canada. And even then, Akiko's page got deleted because she's not notable. Applying the same argument here, being the voice of a foregin dub of an internationally acclaimed live action movie series (Harry Potter) is also not notable, and even if it was, that's just ONE major role out of other minor roles that the subject has voiced. Of course Takaya's name not being mentioned in Severus's Wiki article is a good example of him being non-notable. This isn't an animated series - being the foregin voice of a live action actor does not scream notability at all. Basically, what I'm saying is: You could A PART of a notable series, but that does not equate to notability. If being a part of a notable series earns you your own Wikipedia article, then I'm sure every single actor that has participated in the Inuyasha series would have their own, whether it's the original Japanese cast or the English cast. However, as a matter of fact, that is not the case. You want to know what real notability is? Here, take a look. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"This isn't an animated series" - where does the notability guideline say voice actor roles only count if they're voicing cartoons? The article you link to as a specimen of "real notability" shows just how niche animation is. In most non-English-speaking countries, voice actors who dub major films are important industry figures. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Animation is niche? Come on, that has to be the most ridiculous joke I've heard of. I'm sure that Dragonball is niche, Attack on Titan is niche, Bleach is niche, and so is One Piece and Naruto. Also, all of Hayao Miyazaki's works, produced by Studio Ghibli, MUST be niche, too. Hopefully, you could tell the sarcasm in this - comes to show you that you couldn't be more wrong. Also makes me wonder why someone as ignorant as you are is even participating in an AFD about voice actors. Of course, it also goes without saying that the likes of Takaya cannot be compared with Bruce - the latter is known as the voice of Richard Moore in Case Closed, Dot Pixis from Attack on Titan, Tanaka from Black Butler, AND Makarov Dreyar from Fairytail. Just counting those four roles is WP:NACTOR right there. You know, there is a reason why I used Bruce as an example - Takaya and Bruce are of similar age, but the latter is clearly more notable than the former. Hopefully you could see that by now. It's also important to note that Kobe's points are not to be dismissed, either - there really is no secondary news articles that help assert the subject's notability. If there was, I wouldn't even have nominated the article for deletion in the first place, even with the limited significant roles the subject has.
"where does the notability guideline say voice actor roles only count if they're voicing cartoons"
Nowhere. But I think it's non-notable, merely being the foreign voice of a live action character. Feel free to disagree, if you'd like. But I'll reassert that point as many times as it takes. Again, nowhere is Takaya's name found on Severus's Wiki article. If that particular dubbing role was indeed as significant as you say it is, I'm sure even a passing mention could be observed on it. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
"In most non-English-speaking countries, voice actors who dub major films are important industry figures."
A completely baseless statement. Where's the proof that supports it? I live in China. Hong Kong, to be specific. We have a voice acting industry here, but it's niche. Hong Kong Chinese do produce foreign dubs of live action shows and movies. And of course, voice actors are hired to voice in them. Guess what, though? Pretty much nobody knows who they are. Not even the Hong Kong locals themselves. It shouldn't be hard to figure out why none of the Chinese voice actors have English language wikis dedicated to them. Take a look here:
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
The truth of the matter is, you're generalizing most voice actors in non-English speaking countries that dub major films are important industry figures - not only is that statement baseless, but I believe it to be completely false as well. I will continue to hold this claim until you could prove otherwise. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have not registered a formal "vote" above, so I will do so here. First, to clarify a comment above about the many websites his name appears on, they are sites about the works he has appeared in. They are not fansites or blogs about the subject, they merely mention his name. So he does not have a "cult" following. If he did have a cult following then the biography on the Japanese Wikipedia would be full of trivia, rather than the current four sentences.
We have established that there are plenty of non-reliable sources which provide a list of the subject's filmography. Does Wikipedia need another list that pretends to be an encyclopedia article? We don't have even the most basic information on the subject, such as where he was born. The article assumes he is a Japanese national because he speaks Japanese, but we cannot even say that with certainty. There is zero significant coverage resulting in zero biographical information. It doesn't matter if the subject wrote WP:NACTOR himself, it is a guideline and not a golden rule. NACTOR is a section of the page Wikipedia:Notability (people). Quoting from the top of the page:
This page in a nutshell:
•A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
•All biographies of living individuals must comply with the policy on biographies of living individuals, being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality.
Despite his long career, this subject fails these two basic requirements. Those who disagree may wish to read WP:WHYN. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
100% agreed with Kobe. I really don't think that a lot of people understand that most of the articles I've nominated are based on this section on WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well it has been almost 2 weeks now, a more solid resolution would be helpful for whoever closes this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WHYN as no sources have been presented that would enable editors to write a balanced biography. No sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail are in the article either. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not shown notable and independent coverage per WP:RS sources not presented. Kierzek (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've done what I can with Google Translate, but it really needs the eyes of someone with Japanese who isn't put off by the sheer number of mere-mention Google hits his prolific credits list entails. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five sources have been added to the article. The first is a profile at talent-directory.com. That website states it "collates information about celebrities with a policy of "fact first", relying primarily upon public documents and statements by the subjects themselves." In Hashi's biography they provide three sources, one is an excerpt from a 2001 interview published by the author of Legend of the Galactic Heroes and the other two are from Hashi's management agency. Putting aside the question of independence of these three sources, all they confirm is that (a) he was born on September 8th (but not the year) in Tokyo, (b) he has a long list of credits, and (c) he "was about 35 years old" when he received the role in the Legend of the Galactic Heroes anime. Turning back to the talent-directory profile, everything else in it (which is not much: his year of birth, college, height, blood type and year of turning professional) is unsourced. Can we treat that site itself as a reliable source? Despite their claim of being "fact-based", I have my doubts.
The second source is a similar "information compilation" site, this time quoting no sources but adding that Hashi's hobby is cooking.
The third source is a list of actors who have appeared in films that the blog's author has seen at the cinema. The author has seen five films that have featured Hashi's voice. The author opines "most people with the name 土師 pronounce it 'Haji', but the actor apparently pronounces it 'Hashi'". No idea who the author is, he only gives his name as "GO".
The fourth and fifth sources are brief statements by Hashi about his work on Harry Potter and All Out.
So, the only source which comes close to providing reliable biographical information is the first one. We now know with some confidence that Hashi was born in Tokyo in September about 60-65 years ago. The year of birth and college are probably correct, but I would say they are not reliably sourced. I thank Andreas Philopater for their effort, but I am not convinced that notability has been established. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Blaszczyk[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nicole Blaszczyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blaszczyk only ever received true attention for winning the Miss Michigan title in 2009. Being Miss Michigan is not by itself enough to make one notable. This is at the very most positive interpretation one event notability. I searched for more information. That is how I learned she now uses the last name Stoll, her married name, I was able to find a wedding registry for Nicole Blaszczyk and Andrew Stoll, but not a reliable source. She is still working as Assistant Athletics Director for Marketing and Promotions at Wayne State University. I am an alumni of Wayne State University, but that university has a very marginal athletic department. It is not division 1, so I doubt even the athletic director would be notable. Even at Michigan State I doubt a holder of Stoll's position would be notable. Beyond that, the only sourcing on her assistant athletic director position is from Wayne State press relasease and web sites. Her film roles are extremly minor, the one film she was in, Up in the Air, in 2009, that I was able to find much on, she is not one of the 58 top listed actors in the film. She has an uncredited role as a stewardess. Being Miss Michigan alone is not enough to justify an article, and that is all we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no inherent notability in an state-level pageant win; nothing stands out about this subject either. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Black Liberation Militia[edit]

New Black Liberation Militia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insignificant militia lacking significant coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I couldn't find much coverage that didn't deal solely with the group's involvement in the Trayvon Martin case. Besides that, they do not appear to meet the WP:ORG threshold of significant coverage in reliable sources. GABgab 01:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish nuclear programme[edit]

Spanish nuclear programme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The website cited as source for this Wikipedia article does not have any sources, the name of the journalist who might have written the article has been removed. Further searching provides no significant results, this article seems to be based on tabloid journalism. In fact, the "theolivepress" article keeps quoting alleged CIA declarations but they don't provide sources.

The article was created in 2009, without any sources. Seven years have passed and this article still doesn't have a valid source, or sources provided are tabloid journalism (I.e. citations without the source of the citation).

If at any point an article about "Spanish nuclear programme" could be made with reliable sources, then a new article should be created, as it stands it's mere gossip.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Rix[edit]

Matthew Rix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP, with significant advertorial overtones, of a music industry figure with no properly sourced indication of notability for any specific reason -- this basically amounts to "person who is automatically notable because he exists", which is not how a person gets a Wikipedia article. The sourcing is entirely to primary sources like his own web page, his own self-published social media content and the web page of a music conference he's directly involved in, with the closest thing to an independent source being a glancing mention of his existence on the website of a non-notable blogger. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get someone over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom - apart from the blatantly promotional nature of the article, WP:BEFORE for me turns up passing mentions at best, amongst all the other people of the same name - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam for this "motivational coach". Nothing approaching an encyclopedia entry here. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Schuck[edit]

Christoph Schuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP, with some advertorial overtones, about a political science professor of potential, but not adequately demonstrated or sourced, notability per WP:NACADEMICS. The only "references" here are his own self-published curriculum vitae on his own website, and his faculty profile on the website of the institution where he teaches -- there's no evidence of reliable, independent coverage about him being shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where anybody is automatically entitled to an article just because he exists: RS coverage which properly verifies passage of a notability criterion must be present, but nothing here satisfies that. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I notified WikiProject Germany a few days ago with no result. I'm unable to locate sufficient sources to justify inclusion at this time, but would be happy to be corrected. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROF. Becoming a full professor at a German University is a significant accomplishment but not enough by itself and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the subject has a de Wiki article but it's sourced to primary sources and is not very convincing as to the subject's notability: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Garten[edit]

Matthias Garten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP, with significant advertorial overtones, whose only substantive claim of notability is as an expert in PowerPoint presentations. There's literally no evidence here of any reliable source coverage about him in sources that are genuinely independent of his own self-published self-promotion; the references are entirely to primary sources (such as his own company's website, the websites of organizations and conferences he was a direct participant in, and press releases), unreliable blogs and Amazon sales pages for his own books. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get someone over WP:GNG just for being CEO -- even his company wouldn't qualify for a Wikipedia article under WP:CORP on the basis of sources like these, let alone its CEO separately qualifying for a BLP just because he's a CEO. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam for creatively named "Chief Presentation Officer (CPO)". Nothing but a marketing brochure. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Swift[edit]

Austin Swift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable "actor". Only notable for being Taylor Swift's brother. Notability is not inherited. Natg 19 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He will remain Taylor Swift's brother for a lifetime I guess; so that can't be helped and would be mentioned in news articles covering him. At the same time, he has been covered extensively by independent reliable sources. What would be your opinion about the following sample? (I am quoting only four right now, but there's quite a few similar ones):
  1. Austin Swift on His Acting Debut in I.T., Working with Pierce Brosnan, and Big Sis Taylor's Advice About Hollywood, InStyle Magazine
  2. 15 Reasons We're Obsessed with Austin Swift, People
  3. Ruby Rose and Martha Hunt Cheer On Taylor Swift's Younger Brother Austin as He Makes His Bigscreen Debut
  4. Ten things to know about Taylor Swift's younger brother, Cosmopolitan
Would you not believe that irrespective of the subject being Swift's brother, the sources cover him significantly? Thanks. Lourdes 01:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 queries please (a thanks in advance for answering)
  1. WP:INHERITED, which you quote, mentions: "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects... Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject." Do you believe that zero independent reliable sources have taken notice of the subject? Or are you interpreting INHERITED in any other manner which is not clear to me?
  2. "Always in the context of Taylor Swift" (your words). Would you only accept sources which do not mention Taylor Swift at all even once throughout the article? If you wish, I can give you the word/paragraph count of the amount of significant coverage of Austin Swift in the said sources where Taylor Swift has not been mentioned. Will that help you reassess these sources? Do you believe that despite all the sources mentioned in the article having Austin Swift as the main, primary subject of discussion in the in-depth coverage, we should still disregard these sources because the name of Taylor Swift is mentioned once/twice/thrice in the said respective articles?
  3. Do you consider People Magazine a "gossip magazine" (in your words)? And InStyle magazine too? Would you therefore recommend that People and InStyle should not be used in Wikipedia articles despite their having in-depth coverage?
  4. Are you saying that the significant coverage of Austin Swift within the multiple articles of People and InStyle (all documented in the Wikipedia article and two here too[7][8][9]) should be rejected because they, in your opinion, have click bait titles? So should sources of celebrities from People Magazine and InStyle magazine with seemingly click-bait titles not be used in Wikipedia articles despite their having in-depth coverage?
  5. Are you also saying that the in-depth coverage provided by People magazine is "pretty bad" (in your words)? And so is InStyle? If yes, why do you say so? Can you point out separately the reasons for each source, which make you believe these are "pretty bad"? I can give you the word/paragraph count of the said sources which contain coverage of the subject. Would that help you reassess the sources?
Your replies would help me understand how you assess the relevance of such in-depth sources, and improve my understanding too. Thanks. Lourdes 05:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The guidelines require roles in acting that are multiple and significant. We have one article here entiled "blink and you will miss him". He only gets notice because he is the brother of Taylor Swift, not because his acting has actually been multiple or significant. He may go on to having multiple significant roles, but he has not yet, so we should delete the article at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you purely referring to NACTOR? Would you also comment on whether the subject qualifies on BASIC/BIO/GNG? Thanks. Lourdes 04:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NACTOR because roles appear to be in minor productions, article relies too heavily on notable sibling Seasider91 (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. I asked this of another editor above (didn't get a response though to any of my queries above). Are you purely referring to NACTOR? Would you also comment on whether the subject qualifies on BASIC/GNG purely based on the sources? And what do you mean by "article relies too heavily on notable sibling"? The stub has only one line that refers to the sister. Your clarification will help me understand your viewpoint. Thanks. Lourdes 11:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello Lourdes, the subject has not, in my opinion, appeared in multiple significant productions, nor does he have a cult following, nor has he made a unique contribution to a field of entertainment. I also feel that the coverage is trivial at best. Seasider91 (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:N and GNG. N. GASIETA|talk 14:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naushaad Gasieta (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Comment Analysis of sources:
  1. 10 Things to Know About Taylor Swift's Younger Brother Cosmopolitan - A collection of 15 instagram posts/retweets of Taylor Swift/Austin swift with 1 or 2 sentence description of each. Hardly any secondary coverage and this isn't even an article.
  2. 15 Reasons We're Obsessed with Austin Swift People - Similar share of instagram posts with very little coverage
  3. Ruby Rose and Martha Hunt Cheer On Taylor Swift's Younger Brother Austin as He Makes His Bigscreen Debut People - Once again, similar share of instagram posts with a brief mention
  4. Blink And You'll Miss Taylor Swift's Brother In New 'I.T.' Trailer Huffington Post contributor - Once again a share of instagram posts
  5. Taylor Swift's Brother Austin Swift Makes His Acting Debut in I.T. Trailer Eonline - very similar to the Huffington post source above.
  6. Austin Swift on His Acting Debut in I.T., Working with Pierce Brosnan, and Big Sis Taylor's Advice About Hollywood Article consists of quotes by Swift and is in the context of the movie
  7. A couple of more in People by the same author [13],[14] in ref 3
The coverage here is either gossipy reshares of instagram posts with little secondary coverage or brief quotes from Austin Swift in the context of the movie and Taylor Swift. This is essentially a BLP1E at this point. As for the questions about People magazine - usually we try not to use gossipy sources. Over here, the sources which are simply resharing those instagram posts are not useful because we specifically require significant content written by a third party about the subject.
In addition most of the coverage is simply because he has a notable sibling. Whether we should create a standalone page for the subject depends on the quality and extent of coverage. For example Hillary Clinton has a separate page because there are indepth secondary sources focusing on her and showing that she is notable independent of that fact that she is related to Bill Clinton. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Taylor Swift (redirect comment added subsequently. Lourdes 09:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)) I'm tending towards delete, given the source analysis provided by Lemongirl and other editors at this Afd. Lourdes 15:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- sources discussed at this AfD have not been sufficient to overcome WP:INHERIT; a vanity page at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect as clearly the only claims of significance are familial, and nothing at all convincing beyond that. SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, when the titles and the leads of the sources which are supposed to provide the notability refer to the subject as "xxx's brother", we know it is a WP:INHERITED case. The subject does not even have an actual career, at best it's too soon. Cavarrone 10:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Halfman[edit]

Ashley Halfman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Halfman was Miss Alabama. This on its own is not enough to establish notability. She is an attorney, but press releases and the like is all I can really find for that. She is a partner in a law firm, but being a law firm partner is not in any way enough to grant notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with nom. Winning of a state level pageant is not sufficient to establish notability. Career as lawyer seems entirely routine. MB 20:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply part of a state-focused event alongside with several others, and none of this inherits actual notability or significance for that matter, since there's nothing substantial for her own article, outside of those events. SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom, nothing here to indicate notability.Paste Let’s have a chat. 10:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Stomps[edit]

Beth Stomps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stomps is only notable for having been Miss Alabama and that is not enough on its own to establish notability. Being a BSA council executive is not a sign of notability, expecially when the only source establishing such is the subject's Linkedin page. We also have sourcing to her wedding anouncement published in the local paper. So her post beauty pageant career is just plain not notable and being Miss Alabama is not enough to justify having an article on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with nom. Winning of a state level pageant is not sufficient to establish notability. Post-pageant career in sales seems entirely routine. MB 20:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Miss Alabama 1997 is the only "claim to fame" and 20 references do not change the fact that the one event is all there is. Otr500 (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a vanity page on an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 03:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HolidayMe[edit]

HolidayMe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable online travel agency. Does no meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Significant RS coverage cannot be found; what comes up is trivial mentions and self-promotion link. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This small business recently obtained $7 million in financing. That simple fact does not establish notability, as this is routine in the world of business. I see no significant coverage of the company in independent, reliable sources, but rather just the routine coverage that any small business gets if it sends out a few press releases. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Promotional article about non-notable subject. RollingFace99 (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the refs are mostly only about early funding, which doesn't make an company notable--it's really just evidence of existence, for without that funding they wouldn't exist. The others are just PR. fro msources which have shown themselves to be non-discriminating . DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete and I'll note not only is the sourcing and information blatant advertising, the accounts all contain the exact advertising-only motivations, complete with one of them named "MyHolidays", there's literally nothing to sensibly improve or accept if it's all blatant. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dellynne Catching[edit]

Dellynne Catching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Catching was Miss Alabama. This alone is not enough to establish notability. Although the coverage seems to have come from across Alabama, it is still not enough to overcome the one event problems. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with nom. Winning of a state level pageant is not sufficient to establish notability. Nothing else post-pageant either. MB 20:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable individual. Articles on state-level pageant wins are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject's only "claim to fame" is winning the Miss Alabama pageant. This went away on July 5, 1969, and a new Miss Alabama. There is nothing but this one event, that is an exclusion to the Basic criteria, concerning notability. Otr500 (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the claims listed are clear, only best known for state-focused pageant events and nothing else aside from that, and there's nothing but the local news articles to support this, therefore there's no independent notability or substance overall. SwisterTwister talk 03:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Grüng[edit]

Kurt Grüng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NARTIST as far as I can tell. Secondary source coverage is lacking. agtx 04:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep- Kurt Grüng is held in high regard in antiquarian photography processes Collodion process [[17]] also featured in a Leica photography book ISBN-10: 3942518368[1] V1ru2 (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. There is no significant coverage, public exhibitions or being part of public collection. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Kurt Grüng Note: Public exhibitions - "D E L I Q U I U M" DARK MOVEMENTS EXHIBITION London (19-21.02.2015)[6] a set of early industrial style photos, '1st NSK Folk Art Biennale' exhibition at Leipzig, Germany (3.5.2014)[7] Neue Slowenische Kunst inspired photograph, on display at the "Time for a New State?" NSK seminar and Folk Art exhibition at Manchester Metropolitan University. (14.11.2012)[8] Solo Exhibition, at MILKandLEAD Art Gallery, London (07.03.2013)[9] Selected works at joint exhibition, at SUMMER DARKNESS Festival, Utrecht (26.07.2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.7.83 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem with those exhibitions is that the venues are not notable. Public exhibition must be held in museum, notable gallery or be a part of known art fair or event. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you say those exhibitions are not notable. Manchester Metropolitan University is not notable? NSK Leipzig Joint exhibition was held at Spinnerei Gallery in Germany (which is a very notable gallery!!).
  • Keep- The article contains room for improvement but that does not mean that it should be deleted. Kurt has been cited by independent media and they can be used as secondary sources. The Independent recently featured him as "contemporary artist". Kurt certainly passes WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. A mention is also present here. The reviewer should keep the article and help the Wikipedians to build it. Faizan Kumar (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • — Faizan Kumar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. agtx 19:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article in the Independent is not significant coverage. It is a single, passing, offhand mention of the artist that does not confer notability. agtx 22:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as I see nothing else apart from expected exhibitions and news articles, there are no collections such as museums or other significant substantial events, therefore it's not currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Kurt Grüng has contributed to multiple NSK folk art joint exhibitions around Europe Kurt Grüng certainly passes WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST He is one of the emerging Artists at NSK. nskstate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtoalabi (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin Something strange is going on with this AFD. We've had a solid handful of SPAs, a user who hasn't edited in five months returning just to vote here, and an IP user who tried to close the AFD. agtx 23:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Multiple joint exhibits in vatious places explicitly does not meet WP:CREATIVE. What is need is work in major museums. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss Alaska. MBisanz talk 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maryline Blackburn[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Maryline Blackburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blackburn has lots of non-notable roles that never add up to being notable. I have not found any evidence that she is even remotely notable for being a singer, nothing even approaching crossing the guidelines for musicians. Winning the Miss Alaska contest is not at all a sign of notability. The coverage that I could find on that is even worse, since it only exists because the runner up was Sarah Palin. She was defeated in her run for public office so she is also not notable as a politician. The previous discussion is plagued by flawed keep arguments. A few asserted that every Miss Alaska is notable, which we have pretty much settled is not the case. Others insisted that the Sarah Palin story was going somewhere. However I fail to see anything about her interactions with Sarah Heath, now Sarah Palin, that rise to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with nom. Winning of a state level pageant is not sufficient to establish notability. Nothing else post-pageant is sufficient. MB 20:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable. Being a rival to Sarah Palin does not count, as notability is not inherited, nor does losing a state election. This leaves Miss Alaska and a non-referenced bit-part on TV. Otr500 (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -- I found a passing mention in Black America: A State-by-State Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1 highlighting Blackburn as the first African-American Miss Alaska. But this info can be included in the Miss Alaska article. Since there is some coverage of the subject in RS, perhaps a redirect to Miss Alaska would be appropriate. (I generally advocate deletion in similar cases, but here we are dealing with a case of someone mentioned in an encyclopedia, so it's possible the name is a valid search term). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Hancock[edit]

Abby Hancock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hancock was Miss Alaska and a local TV producer. The second point we only have sourced to a press release from her employer. The first point is sourced to a few fairly local coverage articles, but nothing that is sustained or that suggests that Hancock has reached a true level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with nom. Winning of a state level pageant is not sufficient to establish notability. Career as journalist seems entirely routine. MB 20:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Also agree with nom. A Google search shows the Wikipedia article and mirror sites. Nothing worthy of a stand-alone article. Miss Alaska 2010 and local coverage is certainly not enough. Otr500 (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a state-level pageant win is not sufficient for notability, and there's nothing else there.. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's no actual significance or notability apart from participating at those events along with other several pageant members involved, none of this is actually suggests a meaningful improved article given there's only those events considered. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey Grenier[edit]

Zoey Grenier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Grenier was Miss Alaska and that on its own is not enough to make someone notable. I checked for additional sources, and there is nothing showing sustained coverage to indicate lasting notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with nom. Winning of a state level pageant is not sufficient to establish notability. Since she is so young, there is no post-pageant career; she is just a college student so there is no other claim to notability. MB 20:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Winning a state-level pagaent is not an automatic pass to notability, and I see nothing else of substance here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Primary sources are not used to prove notability. This leaves a general secondary ABC reference about all Miss Alaska contestants being winners and two KTVA-TV reports referencing "Miss Alaska". Winning a state pageant competition does not confer notability as the event, relating to the subject and lacking anything else, passes with a new pageant winner. There has been efforts to add up local pageants and national pageants where a subject did not win or even place, as a count towards notability. This person did not place in the top 15 of Miss America so this does not count (and only primary sources anyway) so this falls under WP:BIO1E of winning one state pageant. Otr500 (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Giannini[edit]

Lindsey Giannini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Giannini is not notable beyond being Miss New Jersey, and that is not enough to justify an article on her. The coverage is all local or press releases except the article from USA today. That is probably not even the level of an article that would justify creating an encyclopedic article, but even at that the USA today article exists because her boyfriend is a noted race car driver, not because she is a noted beauty queen. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with nom. Winning of a state level pageant is not sufficient to establish notability. Since she is so young, there is no post-pageant career; she is just a college student so there is no other claim to notability. MB 20:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katharyn Nicolle[edit]

Katharyn Nicolle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nicolle is only marginally notable for being Miss New Jersey. While I did find an additional article about her working to increase literacy education while in this position, nothing suggests this rises above a one event notability. The coverage of her, even from Philadelphia papers, is a result of living in the local coverage area. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with nom. Winning of a state level pageant is not sufficient to establish notability. MB 20:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This one sentence super-micro biography fails everything relevant concerning "Wikipedia:Notability (people)", including WP:ANYBIO: #1, #2 (consensus that winning a state pageant does not provide notability to warrant an article), and #3, and certainly including WP:BIO1E. It has one primary source because "Philly.com" redirects to a Welcome to the Archives general search page and not a reference to support content. For $7.95 anyone that wants to check the reference is certainly welcome but it just confirms the subject was crowned Miss New Jersey, adding reinforcement to WP:BIO1E. Considering this it fails WP:GNG "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Any notability thus far has been temporary, relegating the article to permanent stub status. This article does not satisfying the notability guidelines and a good-faith search did not cover anything to change that. Otr500 (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- wikipedia is not a catalog of state level pageant winners. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francie Knapp[edit]

Francie Knapp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article says basically nothing about Knapp, only that she was Miss New Jersey USA, which in and of itself is not enough to pass notability guidelines. My search for sources on google turned up nothing else. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with nom. Winning of a state level pageant is not sufficient to establish notability. MB 20:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nomination. It is very much a stub with nothing that appears to be viable content. Dolotta (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per outcomes of comparative deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 10:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S Uthuman Ghani[edit]

S Uthuman Ghani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find evidence of notability beyond the sources already cited. Adam9007 (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

then you not find properly. because you not know local languages. one good website for search singapore news articles: eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers maybe indian singaporeans not edit wikipedia because ang moh bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.100.135.53 (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Thanks for adding new entries :) NasssaNser (talk/edits) 13:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow (disambiguation)[edit]

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:2DABS, since there is already a primary topic, so only hatnotes are needed. Delete. NasssaNser (talk/edits) 03:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have found and added a few entries, so it's not just two any more. Such a juicy title—I knew it must have been used often. — Gorthian (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Now has plenty of content, valid dab page. PamD 12:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Woolard[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Morgan Woolard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article as is is a run of the mill article on a beauty pageant winner with no substance, and no deep reliable sources. A google news search does actually turn up a whole lot of reliable sources, but they are all razor sharp focused on her response to a question at the Miss USA pageant. The function and roles of these questions and the controversy they are clearly meant to engender, and why they appear at Miss USA but not apparently at Miss America, is worthy of consideration in articles, at least if reliable secondary source inquiry can be found. If not, it is a good subject for scholarly reasearch for some up and coming scholars. However none of that makes the individuals put in tight places and forced to take public stands on highly contentious issues with no time to prepare notable indepedent of the pageant itself. On another note this article was deleted before but that was back in 2007 when her highest claim to fame was being Miss Oklahoma Teen USA. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Two links are dead. This leaves a primary source to Miss Oklahoma USA and a Fox news report, about her Immigration Response, during the Miss USA 2010 pageant where she placed as 1st runner up. This is not enough to push the threshold of notability for article inclusion. The subject is already named in the other articles so no redirect is needed. Otr500 (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- insufficient sources to build an article. WP:WHYN applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not actually independently notable outside those pageant events therefore there's nothing else to actually signify importance aside from simply participating. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ mentioned, ed. by Till Schaffarczyk and Rainer Schillings. With pictures and texts of photogr. as (2013). Leica myself. Hamburg: 99Pages. ISBN 3942518368. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_October_22&oldid=1142620816"