Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 January	19 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ns8[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP, WP:GNG, and WP:PROMO. I think the only argument to be made is that their affiliation with MACH37 makes them notable, but that might be crossing over into WP:INHERIT. The company was founded in 2016, simply WP:TOOSOON. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination for WP:NCORP, WP:GNG, and possibly WP:TOOSOON, but not WP:PROMO. Nothing about this article seems promotional in nature. Nothing about this article is any different from other well established articles about companies. {MordeKyle} ☢ 23:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable private company. Content belongs on the company web site, not here. Such as this:

The primary goal of this product is to counter the rising levels of Internet marketing and retail fraud which in 2015, cost advertisers $5 Billion out of the total $14.6 Billion spent on online advertising.

Strictly "marketing brochure" content. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear motivation of PR misuse considering the information is PR backed by their own republished PR, that's clear enough for any deletion. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ForRent.com[edit]

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

non-notable website Wikipedia:Notability (web) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Web site fails WP:GNG. {MordeKyle} ☢ 23:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising alone. SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red 3 Rummy[edit]

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

Removed PROD. WP:NOTGUIDE and per this, likely a creation of the author or an acquaintance. TimothyJosephWood 21:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed with nominator, this doesn't appear to be a "recognized" version of Rummy, but something developed by the author or somebody s/he knows. PK T(alk) 21:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. –Grondemar 18:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nestmann[edit]

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

I find no evidence of coverage to meet WP:GNG, and nothing for WP:BIO, nor for The Lifeboat Strategy nor for The Nestmann Group. Largoplazo (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources cited, and article's originator appears to be related to the subject in some way. PK T(alk) 22:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, no reliable sources. Jeff Quinn (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and agreed that writer seems to be related. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm new to this, so I don't know precisely how to add my comments here, which Laroplazo requested. You all state there are no references in the article, yet there used to be. According to the History, Chrissymad removed just about all the external links that supported the article. I do not understand why they were removed, since you all seem to want them to prove Notability. I thank you in advance if someone could explain all this to me. I realize it takes your time, but you're requiring sources but then remove them when they were originally included. Dave Clingman for The Nestmann Group (and, yes, I am related to the subject) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NestmannG (talk • contribs) 22:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Chrissymad removed links leading to works by Mark Nestmann, if I'm not mistaken. A Wikipedia article can list a bibliography, but it shouldn't be treated as a portal that leads people directly to a person's works, and especially not to sales links like Amazon. An addition, there shouldn't be external links within the content of an article; footnoted references are used. There are also guidelines for external links that may be listed at the end of an article in addition to references.

As for notability, works produced by a person don't demonstrate the person's notability, even taking into account what they were published in. Sources that demonstrate notability are reliable, independent, secondary sources about the person. The piece on the Washington Post website is in one person's blog post, without the full weight of reliability ascribed to Post articles that have been through the editorial process. It doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Largoplazo (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This page makes me angry, for several reasons. Even if everything stated as if true in the article, this person still fails notability as we define it. In fact, by stating such things as he runs a "boutique" firm, he falls into the category of run of the mill business person and lawyer, one of a crowd of millions. As an attorney, I've represented several famous people, including 1, a film producer who had his short at Cannes and also happens to be my domestic partner, 2, was pro bono counsel to several soon-to-be-notable musicians, 3, I am executor-attorney for the estate of the father of a very famous casting director who's worked with Jake Gyllenhall and Natalie Portman, 4, I was pen pals with Ralph Alpher, and 5. pro bono attorney for the "small estate" of a notable Hugh Carey-administration official who fell on hard times. None of that makes me notable. Who one represents or knows or is related to does not matter for notability. Unless a lawyer represents an extraordinary famous person, such as being counsel the President of the United States or an infamous criminal, they are just not notable in my book nor in our book. Lawyers are notable for what they do, what service they perform for the bar, for their academic expertise, and what the rights - not just the money - they win for other people. The whole page is one long boastful advertisement for profit. Any lawyer can do that! Any lawyer should do that! That gets us to my most serious problem with people who post their resumes on our encyclopedia. Wikiepdia is a charity, not some ordinary for-profit social media place. We could lose our 501(c)(3) status. Hostelling International lost its charity status in Canada because of the way it was just renting beds and not doing any social good -- let that be a warning to us editors. All of the work we've done for the past ten years would go right down the toilet if we continue to allow wealthy people to post their c.v.s here in our encyclopedia. So, I am very angry. If I were still a sysop I would salt this one, and that is exactly what I suggest we do with this page. Bearian (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.

Thank you both for explaining things so clearly. I accept the deletion of the page. Is there something I need to do for this, or will you guys take care of it? Thanks again. Dave Clingman for The Nestmann Group

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nutthapon Rakkhatham[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, either WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. The (rather minor) awards won and festival selections of his work, while commendable for someone fresh out of film school, aren't significant enough to establish notability for either the films or the director. Paul_012 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, Paul I created that page, I agree with that if it isn't enough to establish notability for Nutthapon, but I also created the page like that on Thai wiki https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutthapon_Rakkhatham but deleted it already, However the URLs (th version and en version of wiki/Nutthapon_Rakkhatham)of them still appear on network and although nothing inside, could you help me to delete all of it including the url cause they still appearing when I search my name with the google search on the top rank, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iturkr (talk • contribs) 07:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G7, as the only substantive authors requested deletion. Ppp ery 19:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This article does not assert the importance of the subject. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 21:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jela Krečič[edit]

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

Classic case of WP:BLP1E: got a degree, got a higher degree, interviewed a notable person, got a job. That's that. Fails WP:GNG by doing so; no depth of coverage. So far, this is WP:UNDUE for her career. WP:JOURNALIST also requires more substance than we have here. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 21:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:TOOSOON. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's a strong consensus that this particular variety of sand art is not notable. A merge to Sand art and play has been discussed, and mentioning sand pictures there remains a possibility, but this should only be done if sufficient reliable sources can be found; as it stands, the article in question is cited chiefly to totally unreliable sources like eBay and Gizmodo. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sand picture[edit]

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

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

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

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

It is not clear that this term "sand picture" has a standard usage. There is no clear significance expressed in this article. No peer-reviewed sources are cited. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with what the nominator states, and I would add that the page seems designed to advertise the links in the article, which are all people who offer art in this medium for sale. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

868,383,950edits (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@868,383,950edits: Hello. In order to have an article about this art form, you will need to do more than tell us what it is and post links to where it can be purchased. You will need to cite independent reliable sources that indicate how this is notable, and indicate that this term is in general use. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my problem is this, this type of art is unknown and i can see good links in internet, only people that made sand picture in their own sites explained abut it, but i try to search again and find better links, when you want to delete it? i need more time 868,383,950edits (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I deleted links to shopping pages, and added new links. please check the article.868,383,950edits (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@868,383,950edits: If this type of art is "unknown" as you state, it will be difficult to have a Wikipedia article about it until it is more well-known. Please review some of the links in my post above for more information. If you need more time to work on it or find appropriate sources that indicate notability, the page can be moved to an area where you can work on it. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean of unknown is this type of art are exist, my grandfather in 50 years ago have one of them but too many of people don't know about it. i created this page to show other people there is this type of art, even in ebay there's instruction to build theme and i added it to ref links and as i said before i deleted links to shopping pages.868,383,950edits (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although some of the external links may be promotional (I agree that some were), I don't think that this makes the article irredeemable (the links can be removed without affecting the article's content). Also, I have seen these sorts of displays in several science museums, where they are used to model geological strata (and keep kids occupied). For these reasons, I don't think deletion is the best way to fix this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbitflyer (talk • contribs) 01:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest to fix the article? Just removing the links? Anything else? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sand art and play. It's not worth a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

i think when something are exist we can create an article for it, as i said 50 years ago my grandfa had one of them and in early 1980 too many of people decided to make it as their own businesses. also in common someone decided to delete all my photos, i don't know why? please join there too:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_868,383,950edits 868,383,950edits (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, mere existence is not enough for an article, otherwise every human on the planet would get one. The reasons more sources are need have been stated above. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

just read this article,

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Fallacy

i mean of exist is about things, not humans.868,383,950edits (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for businesses and art forms. It must be notable to have an article here. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

of course there are art in business, economic is this! but in first is an art and then business, because you buy an paint it's not art?868,383,950edits (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing notable here -- a collection of abstract art by a completely unknown artist and no evidence that there is actually any significant interest in this kind of work. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 13:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too many of wikipedia articles have 10 or less daily previews, they are not notable too!868,383,950edits (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean daily views, the number of views is irrelevant to a subject's notability as a Wikipedia article. You don't seem to understand what is being asked for with regards to reliable sources indicating notability. Please review those pages. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i wonder why you won't try expand my article? just deleting!868,383,950edits (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources, no indication of notability. A search for the phrase only gives me commercial links to buy the equipment and some websites for artists in the medium - no secondary coverage that I can find. --bonadea contributions talk 14:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if the problem is links, we can fix them.868,383,950edits (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Also please note that usernames cannot be shared. It's not "links" that are the issue, as stated several times above. Have you reviewed the pages I suggested that you review above? 331dot (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are entire books about these things, including:

The Sand Art Bottles of Andrew Clemens
Sandplay: Past, Present and Future
A Lost Art: Inventory of an Unique Collection of Sand Pictures by "Zobel", Sand Picture Painter to King George III
Sandplay Therapy: Research and Practice
Mandala Sand Art

There seem to be a variety of art forms of this sort and so we need some sort of disambiguation page. Andrew D. (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: I am aware of the page sand art and play (sand art is already a disambiguation). The page creator contends this is a specific art medium, but has no sources to support it other than artists with art for sale. This seems to be different than just sand art; maybe this could be a redirect. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sand art bottles appears to be one specific form of sand art, different from the sand pictures in this article, which are created with two panes of glass. Zobel's sand pictures are discussed in the Sandpainting article. Sandplay therapy (which is also the subject of the book Sandplay: Past, Present and Future) is something entirely different from the subject of this article. Mandala sand art has an article here. So no, those books are not actually references supporting the notability of this article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, i'm mathematics student not artist. i just bought one and my grandfather said i had one 50 years ago and i searched in wiki and saw there's nothing about it, so i decided to create a page. and all thing i found in internet was that 11 reference in article. some of them is from makers personal sites and their shopping sites. now andrew tell there's books about it.868,383,950edits (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and improve~~ Redirect and merge to sand art and play Remove the promotional links, tag as a stub, and keep. These things are available on every craft market, and have been around for decades. --Slashme (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slashme: But is there RS about it? There seems to be for the more general category of art with sand, so maybe this could be turned into a redirect, but I haven't found any for this specific form(which is what the author is contending). The author themselves states above that they created the page because this art is "unknown". 331dot (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: It's certainly not new. The patent has lapsed already: US patent 4885192. --Slashme (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall saying it was new, the author said it was 'unknown' so they created a page about it. In order to have an article, it needs to be known to some degree, enough to have RS made about it. It doesn't matter if it is old if there are no RS about it to sustain an article. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took a look around, and although there are plenty of guides online on how to make and maintain them, there are no real reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail, so I'm changing my !vote to "redirect and merge". --Slashme (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion as clearly notable with the simplest of searches, or, if one thinks this is a fork, then merge them, one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I did do a search, and did not find many links other than those of artists selling their art; I didn't find what I would consider to be independent reliable sources. If you did, fair enough, but I did check. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:, yes, I assumed you did look, but perhaps you didn't consider a simple merge? Bearian (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the result, I can live with it, but I don't think it's worth it. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i sent email to William Tabar and sand man, two of authors. please wait for their responds.868,383,950edits (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what doing so is meant to accomplish. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, please see this again:

@331dot: It's certainly not new. The patent has lapsed already: US patent 4885192. --Slashme

i didn't know it until now! i sent mail to them, please wait for their responds.868,383,950edits (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic replies: 1 - Hello,

We will are currently out of the studio attending the Las Vegas World Market. We will be returning Friday January 27th. Sorry we missed you. Have a great day! Bill Tabar Exotic Sands, inc.

2-This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

      sand.vendor@sandpicture.com

868,383,950edits (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i sent mail to bazart and eclecticgallery site too, 868,383,950edits (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean WP:COI? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i edited article links, please see it again.868,383,950edits (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User Isambard Kingdom no, i asked them to join talk and support article by their information.868,383,950edits (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and improveRedirect and merge to sand art and play~~, i'm not agree, it's totally difference!868,383,950edits (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is canvassing. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In internet we can't find interested thing, i just asked them to improve article and join talk to show their art!868,383,950edits (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is what canvassing is. It is frowned upon to ask uninvolved persons (especially non-Wikipedia users) who you think might be supportive of your position to come here and state they support it. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only growing more convinced that this should just be deleted; the intent here seems to be to promote this art form. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

everyone can join this chat and my work is true because they have more information about this art history, building process and much more information. i didn't asked them to vote or any thing like it, i just asked them to join to show other people their work is a type of art and explain you and other about it. this is wrong?868,383,950edits (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No one disputes that this is an art form, so it is unnecessary to ask people here to tell us that it is an art form; the question is whether it is a notable art form. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - wait! i don't want to do anything that wikipedia have looking bad for people seach for knowledge here

!(i'm not native english user and here we don't need english at all. sorry for weak english! ), if this work(my article) is wrong please delete it! i don't know anything about sand picture, only thing i know is that is exist, so i decided to search in wiki for more information but i couldn't saw anything, so i decided to create a page!! 868,383,950edits (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article is not bad or wrong, but you have to be able to support it with reliable sources. If you need time to find reliable sources, the page can be turned into a draft so it is not deleted, but you can still work on it until it is ready. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

but you said problem is not source, problem is that this art should be known and notable!

i asked people around, this art age is less than 50 years in world and is one of decorative things that only a few people use it after 50 years.868,383,950edits (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said that "links" are not the issue, but "sources" are. A link is not necessarily a source. For example, the whole reason we are here is that the page was only supported with links to artists who sell art in this art form. That is not an independent reliable source as they have an interest in promoting their art. What we need are news stories that discuss this art form, independent reviews that discuss it, books, anything made by people not directly involved in this art form to indicate that it is notable. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this comment edited! OK, now i understand! i edited article links, please read article again, the firs source is from here that one of users in this talk said. and in ebay (not shopping page, about madding !)and google(the google article referenced by 8 source , look at down of page) i found link that i think they not good but enough, i deleted 6 of links of article include shoping and personal sites, please check them and if they have problem tell here.868,383,950edits (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: even after serious attempts to find sources, it seems that this topic just hasn't been discussed at length in reliable sources, so it definitely fails the GNG. I still think that it is widely enough known that it can warrant an illustration and a paragraph at sand art and play. --Slashme (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sungale Group Inc[edit]

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

Organisation does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. A WP:BEFORE search has only produced business listings, individual products for sale and press releases. Yes, this is a very old article but there is no Significant Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources for this company, as required by the General Notability Guideline. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Nothing out there except a few entries in business directories, some press releases, and product ads. Not notable.Glendoremus (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are grabbing information from old website. Here is new website: http://sungale.com/ and here is about us page: http://sungale.com/about.php Sungale is the brand name, and Sungale electronics (Shenzhen) Limited is the company. http://www.sell147.com/company/China-Mainland/57768.htm Sungale11 (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note So, just to clarify, are you saying that Sungale Group Inc doesn't actually exist? Exemplo347 (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond and Silk[edit]

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

They fail to pass GNG. Zigzig20s (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. They appear to be random bloggers who got tangential coverage. South Nashua (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There are profile pieces specifically on them in prominent and reliable news media such as Politico[1], ABC News[2], NBC News[3], Financial Times[4], and more. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plot Spoiler's sources establish GNG. - Brianhe (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Received steady coverage throughout election and have continued making media appearances since[5].LM2000 (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I personally dislike Trump and his ilk, but Plot Spoiler's sources establish GNG. --Steve Foerster (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources establish notability. Lepricavark (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are bonafide national social personalities and should have an article here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.99.141 (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article meets WP:GNG. There is significant coverage in reliable sources that focuses on them. These are not passing mentions, but in-depth coverage of them that shows their purpose, who they are, why they do what they do. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close The article meets WP:GNG requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dinobot[edit]

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

This character subset does not currently establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I see a number of reliable sources on this article, and I imagine there are even more out there. At worst, merge to List of Autobots rather than delete. BOZ (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to point them out, because I'm not seeing anything. Do note that I'm talking about reliable sources that actually mention the topic in detail rather than a reliable source that mentions the topic in passing mention. Source number 2 talking about the top selling toys of that year is about the franchise in general and only mentions that Dinobots in relation to that designation, so it doesn't particularly belong in the article at all. That seems to be the case with the other sources listed. TTN (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listed below a source that contains more than a passing mention, and shows that it's a noted aspect of the Transformers universe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ. It's a prominent element within the Transformers universe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really an argument. Being prominent is not recognized as a means of notability without sources to prove it. TTN (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The dinobots have been discussed in sources. Like here in the book Masters of FX: Behind the Scenes with Geniuses of Visual and Special Effects. It notes they're "beloved from the animated series". I'm sure other sources could be found. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While certainly much better than sources some other people bring up, that is much more in-line with the movie article than this article. It's not something that should be entirely excluded, but nothing you could hinge an article on. Though if you have more sources, please provide them. If something is actually notable, I'm open to withdrawal. TTN (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source is about the films, but nevertheless it shows that the dinobots are a well-remembered and popular aspect of the Transformers universe. There is another source here calling the Dinobots "the greatest of all Transformers concepts", and again, it isn't talking only about the films. See here, here and here for sources testifying to their popularity as toys. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was just talking with my 4-year's boy and the article helped me to be competent! --Perohanych (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully I can't see how that proves notability. "I like it" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Longevitydude (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage several sources have been provided that should show notability; there was already a source for the dinobots being popular as toys in the article when it was nominated for deletion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. C'mon, TTN, you should have developed a sense by now of what the community will support merging, and what we will not. Merging NN content into a list? Fine. Then nominating that list for deletion as well? Not cool. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to announce a change from my vote to Keep. It seems Dinobots has garnered much attention and is very important to a lot of people. Longevitydude (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Greyhawk deities (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia (Greyhawk)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities. Another D&D deity with no non-primary reliable sources or notability. The info here should be merged to the deity list, as it is not currently available there. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, unless some decent third-party sources can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pryanca Talukdar[edit]

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

No indication of notability, largely unreferenced. The provided sources do not cover her in any detail; I could not find any additional reliable sources via Google News. Huon (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to lack substantial coverage. Siuenti (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's enough questionability overall to support deletion especially considering how deeply-PR these subjects are as it is. SwisterTwister talk 01:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan at the 2014 Street Child World Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Adding this too:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant article; everything is adequately covered in the main article Spiderone 12:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – redundant and useless. Laurdecl ^talk 01:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Delete the Pakistan article but Keep the main article. The tournament is somewhat notable, the main article can be redeemed, and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. However, the tournament is not notable enough for articles about individual teams at the competition. Very few events are. Additionally, if consensus is that individual iterations of the tournament are not notable, but the tournament itself is, the 2014 article should be redirected to Street Child World Cup rather than deleted as WP:NSEASONS says that's preferable in these cases. Smartyllama (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Delete both. Completely non-notable sports event. Ajf773 (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The event seems pretty non-notable and the Pakistan participation in it even more so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:GiantSnowman, @User:Spiderone, @User:Laurdecl, @User:Smartyllama, @User:Ajf773 and @User:Cwmhiraeth I have added the main articles for nomination to this page as they are more or less related. Please comment if your opinion has changed. Thanks!

Comment. This is confusing because 2014 Street Child World Cup has been tagged but the link is to this AfD discussion. I have proposed that 2014 Street Child World Cup be merged to Street Child World Cup. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whilst I could see how the Street Child World Cup as a competition could be notable, I am not sure articles on individual iterations are and therefore am sure that more granular articles on individual country's performance at individual competitions are not notable. Furthermore, I note that the team itself does not have an article, so unsure how we can have an article on their performance without it. Fenix down (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fenix down: If the 2014 article isn't notable but the tournament as a whole is, then the 2014 article should be redirected to the main article, not deleted, per WP:NSEASONS. Any objection? Smartyllama (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Pakistan at the 2014 Street Child World Cup, as above votes have shown this is a pretty redundant article that adds very little if at all for the subject, but I would also vote Keep for 2014 Street Child World Cup as the article seems notable and has the potential to be expanded in my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both for Pakistan and for the unreferenced parent 2014 article. Purely promotional article. Sometimes the daydream of future notability isn't worth saving an unreferenced article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 2014 Street Child World Cup was not listed or tagged until very late in the discussion period, so we need more time for discussion on that one. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Laotian Times[edit]

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

Prod removed - fails WP:NNEWSPAPER. Single mention by one source. Claim that it has been cited by reputable news sources is untrue as far as I can find. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. News website established in 2016, I find 1 citation in Asia Times and that's it. Fails WP:NWEB, delete per WP:DEL8. — Sam Sailor 19:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A. Dane Bowen Jr.[edit]

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

Seemingly WP:NN individual failing WP:GNG, WP:DIPLOMAT as a mid-level civil servant and WP:ACADEMIC. Article created days after subject's death by an obvious WP:COI editor. Toddst1 (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. I could not find any indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article and as stated above, per WP:Memorial. Kierzek (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete much to low level of a government official to be notable, inadequate coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not make a convincing case for diplomatic, academic, nor general notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Film Channel[edit]

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

Looks like it was WP:TOOSOON in 2008 when this was merely a rumoured channel that might be created. Turns out, in 2017, nothing in that regard has changed. Turns out there actually is no subject, because there is no channel. The entire article is about what might be, and so are the sources. TimothyJosephWood 16:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMEDIA and WP:ORG by all means. Theoretically a non-existing broadcaster could actually be notable for us if there are enough RS to satisfy WP:GNG, but this doesn't seem to be the case here. The sources in the article are basically everything which can be found online, and if we take everything away which is non RS (Twitter etc.), not much is left. The remaining links are basically news and reports on the general future Irish government media strategy and they merely list an Irish film channel as one of the proposed measures without any further information. Those few passing mentions are are not enough enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Since this project seems to be dead anyway I think the article can be deleted without much regret. Dead Mary (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Dead Mary above. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Newport Mesa Unified School District. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ensign Intermediate School[edit]

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

per WP:SCHOOL, high schools are considered notable but junior highs seldom-nothing spectacular here-redirect to local school district Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Blank and redirect to school distriic article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Newport Mesa Unified School District per nom and Kudpung. John from Idegon (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Family Guy directors[edit]

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

Redundant. All directors are listed at List of Family Guy episodes. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like an unnecessary Fork of the List of Family Guy episodes. Not only, as the nominator says, is all of this information already part of that list, but this one has considerably less information, making it not particularly useful. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CFORK. Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above rationale. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant Spiderone 09:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 United States election interference by Ukraine[edit]

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

The article only relies on one source: A Politico "Investigation"; this differs from the 2016 United States election interference by Russia as many agencies of the US government agree that Russia may have interfered with the 2016 Election. Also, on Google News, the incident isn't widely reported. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There is no need to cover a single news report. Joshualouie711^talk 17:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... articles should not be created based upon one investigative claim by a single media source. I recall the article creator from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American influence in the Honduran general election, 2009, we seem to have a pattern of anti-American sentiment here, a user that is creating fringey topics to promote a personal opinion. ValarianB (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - there are more sources out there, and similar Ukrainian connections have been reported as being behind PropOrNot, meaning additional material could be added. I've doubts that there is enough material to sustain an article though. Could there be an existing article to merge it into? Given the obvious connectivity, in ordinary circumstances Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections would be the ideal merge-to. But that article is currently laid-low by out-of-control pov. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a wild theory not supported by multiple reliable sources. It seems to be of the "I know you are, but what am I" camp of rhetoric (pun not intended). I don't like blue people doesn't fly here. Bearian (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. Lepricavark (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2016 United States election interference by Russia. Politico isn't Infowars. They're a legitimate news source. Merge any material that is relevant from this article into the Russia article. I can see a sentence or two being warranted somewhere. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McHenry County K-Nines[edit]

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

Planned baseball team which never actually played a single game. It was supposed to play in the independent Frontier League but the stadium in which it was supposed to play (the Woodstock Ballpark) never materialized. The only coverage I can find is chatter about the choice of the team's name which I don't believe is sufficient for WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Frontier League. Keep in mind, I did originally create this page, so I think that falls under CSD: G7. Tom Danson (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about a redirect but in the end I concluded that it would be weird to redirect to a league that the team was never a part of. Pichpich (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there is content from this article at Frontier League or that should be merged to it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling With Attitude (Book)[edit]

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

PROD deleted by author. This is a transparent advertisement for a non-notable self published book that came out exactly two weeks ago. Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article creator didn't even try here. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 18:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL8, fails WP:NBOOK, and we do not have an article on Ashley Richards that we could reasonably redirect to. DAB is superfluous. — Sam Sailor 20:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability, not that notability could be established for a terrible self-published book by a non-noteworthy author. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm going to close this one per WP:SNOW. While some self-published books can become notable, it's very rare and this work is not one of those exceptions as it has no coverage in WP:RS that would establish notability. I don't see where this would close any differently if it ran for the full week. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK1, criteria 1: the nominator is not proposing a deletion action, but rather, a merge. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers details how controversial merger proposals should be undertaken. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A)[edit]

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

I suggested a merge for this to Starship Enterprise, as this movie-only version of Enterprise not received significant independent coverage and pretty clearly fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It is discussed primarily by primary sources and is already much better covered at MemoryAlpha wikia. However, as someone strongly objected on article talk to the merge, it is time to start a discussion here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This one is a difficult one, because I'm not sure where the article should be merged to. Starship Enterprise is one option, but simply merging it into the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) article is another, since the designers simply re-used the same model again. But this is likely to receive further mentions in the future - after all the Kelvin Timeline's 1701-A came into existence at the end of Beyond. For the moment this can be merged somewhere, and be reviewed if that coverage is then generated in the future from the next film. Miyagawa (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think merge is a fair option, but I wonder if the argument needs to be stronger than saying that this is only a movie Enterprise. True it only appeared on-screen in three films (with an alternate version in the latest film), but it did appear in comics and books and had models made of it. It also could be argued that the Death Star has only appeared in three films. As a side note I would also point out there are some Babylon 5 ships which appeared in one or two episodes only which have full articles eg EAS Churchill. Dunarc (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the Death Star has had an impact on popular culture yes, but that article is analogous to Starship Enterprise rather than the 1701-A - I don't believe we have an article about the Death Star from RotJ specifically. And one must avoid arguments that X exists therefore Y must also. The question is does the A (and the E) have a notability that extends beyond "the Enterprise", and honestly I'm not sure it does. As regards books etc, non-canon stuff is generally given short shrift here, but most books don't specifically state which Enterprise it is, given that Kirk was captain of two (arguably three if you consider the refit). -mattbuck (Talk) 17:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunarc: Per Matt and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the relevance of those B5 article is null. Please go ahead and prod or AfD them. As much as I like B5, perhaps even more than ST, they fail notability even more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks both for your response - I think you are right and merge would be would be appropriate. Dunarc (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus (or even arguments advanced) for deletion; merge discussion should continue at the talk page. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E)[edit]

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

I suggested a merge for this to Starship Enterprise, as this movie-only version of Enterprise not received significant independent coverage and pretty clearly fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It is discussed primarily by primary sources and is already much better covered at MemoryAlpha wikia. However, as someone strongly objected on article talk to the merge, it is time to start a discussion here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the case of the Enterprise's, there is plenty of information out there specifically related to the design work. This is discussed not only in primary sources (which I'd consider to be the website of the designer), but also a variety of books by Pocket Books as well as unofficial sources. Much in the same way as Enterprise (NX-01). I'd expect the E to have at least the same level of coverage, if not more. Miyagawa (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference, though, is that the NX-01 was the main setting for a four season-long TV series, where as the E was only featured in three of the movies, two of which were considered to be rather unsuccessful. And, as a result, there just aren't as many reliable sources as there are on the NX-01, D, or any of the other Trek ships that were featured in one of the TV series. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have at least the Eaglemoss magazine on the E, which I don't have access to, then in additional you'll have quite a lot of detail on the redesign in any books covering the films or Next Gen in general. The E has a bit of a history, as it was originally planned to re-use the D model, but this was dropped at the last minute. Heck, I'm sure I saw somewhere that when the primary D model was sold off, it was actually marked up on the model as the E. It was the first CGI Enterprise, and the last Enterprise to have a physical model built. I would say that the coverage compared to the NX-01 is probably greater as there are very limited number of sources for that series. Regarding the Eaglemoss magazine, I wouldn't use that as an instant reason to have an article as otherwise we'd have dozens of similar articles whose basis is only on that one magazine and then occasional mentions in reviews etc. Miyagawa (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Starship Enterprise. I'm not sure if its proper procedure to go to AFD after a single objection on the Merge discussion, but I do agree that the article should be merged. The article is mostly just in-universe fancruft, and unlike the more well-known versions of the ships from the TV series, this one doesn't have a whole lot of reliable sources discussing it in any way. Pretty much the only thing I can find that isn't fansites or wikias is an article about a building in China being modeled after its appearance, which while a start, is not enough by itself to establish independent notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Similar to what I have said in the discussion about the Enterprise A, it is true it only appeared on-screen in three films, but it has appeared in comics and books and had models and toys made of it. Moreover it was highly used in the publicity of these films and the films' reception should not make a difference to its inclusion. That said I think some good arguments have been made for merging to the generic Starship Enterprise article.Dunarc (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, of course keep the page, all of the Enterprise ships are notable and should have their own articles. Randy Kryn 05:26, Star Date 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Would you have a less fanboy argument? Because I am sorry to say there is no policy that states "Star Trek Enterprise' ships are notable just because they are, well, Star Trek Enterprise. WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an argument at all, I am afraid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The ship wasn't a minor ship in the series, it was the main ship and the principal location for three of the first ten Star Trek films, back in the day when the films weren't all about explosions and mayhem. The page needs further sources, yes, but not deletion. I certainly am not a Wikilawyer, but I know a topic worthy of keeping, and this page falls comfortably into WP:COMMONSENSE. With over 350 views a day it is a valuable part of Wikipedia's Star Trek collection, and, given the interest in the topic, the encyclopedia is better with it than without it. As with many other topics for deletion, the act of putting it up for removal hopefully will get some editors who can add to the sources and further improve the page, so can someone alert the films project and the Star Trek project, which as far as I know isn't as active as it seems to have been. Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for providing a proper argument, you do make some interesting points. Do note that as this article was tagged on talk page with ST template, it is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/mainpage/alerts, so any fan of ST should be aware of this (provided they watchtlisted that page, hint hint). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The project page probably doesn't have as many editors as it did (sadly, many projects have the same situation, I wonder if a 'Wikipedia Project' notice and description can be put in a banner for a day or two to attract new editors), although maybe many of them are doing other things in time and space. A couple of us non-project members went through a long (and article improving) AfD with The Klingon Way a few months ago, and hopefully this page will have some improvements due to this AfD. Randy Kryn 21:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 14:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee muench[edit]

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

Attack page - no references at all, nothing worth keeping! KoshVorlon} 14:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD G10. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 14:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UDF 366[edit]

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

No apparent significance. I cannot find a published paper that discusses this object in any sort of detail. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. All the published info on this object could fit on one row of a spreadsheet.Glendoremus (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all criteria of WP:NASTRO. Astro4686 (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UDF 5[edit]

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

No apparent significance. I cannot find a published paper that discusses this object in any sort of detail. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all criteria of WP:NASTRO. Astro4686 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SFN[edit]

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

A knot of interrelated 2011-2012 autobiography and marketing pages by SPAs/meatpuppets with no evidence of significant independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Recent PROD removed from 3 articles by the creator of 2 of them, so converting to AfD. Closeapple (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the (auto)biographies and product worship of this same "St. John-Fisher Co." group:

--Closeapple (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Users, whether or not anonymous, are reminded that they are expected to disclose Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Furthermore, per the Wikipedia Terms of Use, they are required to disclose any "employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which they receive, or expect to receive, compensation". This includes when participating in this discussion. --Closeapple (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Todd Fisher (producer) article nominated here is about Todd J. Fisher (a producer at online businesses of several big media companies, and then American Cybercast), not the more famous producer Todd Fisher (Todd E. Fisher, son of Eddie Fisher and recently-deceased Debbie Reynolds, brother of recently-deceased Carrie Fisher). --Closeapple (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The same user(s) that created these articles also created Travis Marsh (a musician associated with the same company) in the past and had it deleted by PROD. Related articles that still exist (and weren't nominated in this AfD) include Ragged Isle and River Ridge (TV series). --Closeapple (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of four articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of four articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:PROMO ("...created by online pioneers Stewart St. John and Todd Fisher...") and walled-garden concerns. Spam on unremarkable subjects and not much else. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Arts, Belgrade[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria for either General Notability, WP:N, or Organization Notability, NSCHOOL. No reliable, independent sources found. DonFB (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a degree-awarding institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to find out if and how the Academy of Arts is accredited, and have not found anything. Do you have a source, Necrothesp? Mduvekot (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly claims to be and what appear to be copies of official documents confirming this appear on its website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legitimate academic institution. Mainstream coverage in e.g. Večernje Novosti [6], quote: In the past two decades over 1100 students graduated on the Academy, and teachers were 250 distinguished artists and theoretists from the country and abroad. Among others, Živojin Pavlović, Savo Mrmak, Branko Pleša, Velimir Lukić, Siniša Kovačević, Slobodan Šijan, Biserka Cvejić, Predrag Ejdus, Petar Banićević, Andrija Zafranović, Mirjana Karanović and Nebojša Dugalić. — note the number of bluelinks in en.wiki. The aniversary also covered in National TV No such user (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am convinced by Necrothesp that school is an accredited institution, and by No such user that sufficient sources exist to base an article on. Mduvekot (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed. Seems notable and school is an accredited institution. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It definietely meets our GNG standards. I hope it's not nominated, because of its current stub status. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semiconductor sales leaders by year[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of market data. TimothyJosephWood 13:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTIINFO. Ajf773 (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not just a webhost for random stuff. Even if it could be sourced, it will almost certainly get buried in bundles of primary sources as it is now. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO, all content cited to press releases from "IHS iSuppli Semiconductor preliminary rankings"; possibly exists to promote this business. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and as per above. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romel Wallen[edit]

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

WP:N. He hasn't played in a fully professional league or at full international level (WP:FOOTYN). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither notable as agent or footballer. Mohammad Sally (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG Spiderone 10:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 23:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 23:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genese Davis[edit]

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

With lots of unreliable sources, this person fails WP:NBIO. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick review of the sources shows substantial coverage in at least two good sources, this she passes. Can you be more specific as to what's wrong? Ordinary editing should be able to fix the problem you've identified. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 09:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 09:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep However, article needs to go beyond a couple lists of accomplishments, as it looks more like a resume. Sources are hit and miss; Orange County Register is definitely ideal, but a passing mention in Bleeding Cool, not so much. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 03:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Khanjan[edit]

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

Person mentioned in the article is not notable at all. Some youtube videos and trivial mention in local media. Fails GNG. Last AFD discussion was closed as no consensus even though there was no opposing votes. Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Fails WP:NOTABLE. Furthermore, person isn't a celebrity, just a social media user.Usman Khalil_Talk 09:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprising myself on this one, because I generally don't see much significance in social-media "stars". But the instant subject has received substantial coverage from multiple reliable sources. And the Express Tribune and the Daily Times (Pakistan) are not "local" sources. Furthermore, unlike many articles on non-notable people, the sources appearing here are not passing mentions, they're not press releases and they're not interviews. Pakistani journalists are actually writing about the guy. The strongest argument for deletion that I can see is that this press coverage might not be persistent and that nothing more will ever be written about him. But for that argument to be valid, we'll have to wait at least a year. In the meantime, we do have three substantial sources appearing in the article, and that's enough to pass the general notability guidelines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Fails WP:NOTABLE. I originally CSD tagged this, and since then there has been no additional media coverage indicating notability. David.moreno72 01:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTABLE. I added CSD A7 tag just now. I also fixed AfD template to point to the correct page. Feel free to remove my CSD if you feel it's inappropriate given it has an open AfD. Justin15w (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually see a CSD was declined about a month ago. I'll remove the CSD. Justin15w (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCRHA seasons[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of redlinks. There are also a number of bluelinks. So long as we still have articles on individual seasons we need a way for readers to navigate and find them. A list is one more way of doing that. Now, if such Afds as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006–07 NCRHA Division I season are successful, then a list organizing seasons is obviously not required. But the by-season Afds should logically take place first. I don't believe any NCRHA Division I seasons have yet been deleted at Afd? ~~If not, keep, for now, at least.~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shawn's points are well taken, but it seems that the nominations for the season-by-season articles have, in fact, been closed as "deletes". NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above reasoning. GauchoDude (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes at this point it could even be speedied g8, I think. Remove objection. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: well I tried that... Was rejected... :-( --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. Yes, I see that. "The list can exist w/o the links." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kind of pointless without the seasons. I don't think that it should be speedied, since we do have plenty of lists of things that don't have individual articles, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping this. Smartyllama (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sex differences in leadership[edit]

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

Article untouched since 2012 when an essay tag was added. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neither being an essay nor being little edited are reasons for deletion, and "AfD is not for cleanup". The article is thoroughly cited, and if you feel it needs updating ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's not so awful. Bearian (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no grounds given for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well cited & appears to be a notable topic, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per K.e.coffman. Topic is notable, article well-written and sourced. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 02:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flickstree[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP. The company has only been in business for two years and, while they received a nod from Facebook last month, there's simply not enough here for the company to meet WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the company is not yet notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The coverage referenced in the article is typical start-up coverage and most recently their inclusion in a Facebook programme for "early-stage mobile startups". I am not seeing WP:CORPDEPTH coverage; at best this is WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Run of the mill start-up. Bearian (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Flanaess. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oeridians[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Flanaess as it has no merit to be a stand alone article. Longevitydude (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flanaess, though sparingly, as this group isn't particularly notable, and the article has no inline citations. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of European countries by median wage[edit]

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

The article contains lots of unsourced and unrealiably sourced information. It tries to provide an overview over median wages in Europe, however depending on the bureau of statistics (or newspaper) indicators vary greatly and the article fails to make proper distinctions. To present the information in a responsible manner, the article would have to be more rigourous with its own methodology and go into depth with the various indicators used by the different bureaus, however this would lead to it being original research. Evotopid (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly the result of original research and synthesis. And the references are a complete mess.Glendoremus (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, badly-sourced (different data sources by country, wide variance in source years, extremely incomplete/inconsistent synthesis of data). Might change vote if it can be fixed to use a single source (e.g., IMF). Mélencron (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herzeleid Tour[edit]

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

Contested prod; I've already deleted this under the WP:PROD process, having concurred totally with the rationale (Non-notable concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been been unreferenced since it was created five and a half years ago and tagged as such for over a year.) but an IP has objected so I've procedurally restored it and brought it here. Per the original rationale, this is totally unsourced, consists largely of a huge (and inappropriate) indiscriminate list, and does nothing to suggest why this tour is noteworthy enough to warrant a standalone article rather than a paragraph in the article on the band. ‑ Iridescent 22:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. It's still completely unsourced, even after more than five years, and makes no claims as to the significance of the tour. I can find nothing to support its standalone notability. I suggest a paragraph at either the band's article, or at the article for the album Herzeleid. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with a relevant article. Since the article was restored, two weeks have passed in which sources could have been added; so the reasons for the original PROD still stand. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments and "keep" votes with no rationales, there's consensus to delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Game of Thrones directors[edit]

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

Unnecessary article. All directors are listed at List of Game of Thrones episodes. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other shows have articles like this.. See(Category:Lists of directors by television series). I don't see any reason why this should be deleted. - AffeL (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. This is just trivial WP:FANCRUFT which doesn't add any value over the episode article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:LISTN. See Variety. - AffeL (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary trivia. Brings no further content than the season articles already provide. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we delete this. We must delete all the other ones mentioned above. - PeterD12 (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)— PeterD12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not necessary to delete all of them. Perhaps a limit should be decided upon as to how many directors there should be to create an article. This here is just a fan's listing. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a false argument Peter. We are not discussing WP:OTHERSTUFF, we're discussing this article, which is clearly redundant. What happens to the other articles is not determined here. That being said, some of the others should also go. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's still clearly a useful list to have. PeterD12 (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the information is already at List of Game of Thrones episodes. Also, see WP:USEFUL. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all. PeterD12 (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN.Cindlevet (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)— Cindlevet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Does it though? It seems that there was a news article once that discussed who would be directing some episodes of this show, which editors in the "keep" camp are clinging on to. That isn't justification for this list in itself, as the information is well handled elsewhere. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For precedent, it seems most articles of this type are regularly redirected to the episode lists or deleted. See List of Frasier directors, List of Curb Your Enthusiasm directors, List of Friends directors, List of Lost (TV series) directors, etc... --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still no. That would be the same as deleting. - AffeL (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the histories of those articles, you would find that they are examples of articles that were created, and then deleted and redirected. The example of the nominated article is identical to the ones listed. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the examples, and they are not identical at all. The size of those are like 1 000 bytes. While this one is over 7 000 bytes. And also those lists only had the directors names on it. Not which episode, or awards, or text, or any pictures in it. So this one is obviously totally different. - AffeL (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you take out all of the information already available at List of Game of Thrones episodes, what are you left with? Which episode is already covered in the episodes' article. The number of episodes that have aired? Trivia. Pictures and their captions? Trivial images, and the details of their awards are available elsewhere. So, if you removed all of the trivial information, then yes, you would be left with an article with a size of less than 1,000 bytes. Your argument does not support your opposition of this deletion. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My argument does not support, according to who? You? This list is important to see which director has directed what episode in the show(AKA The biggest show in the world). Why won't you go and try to delete List of Doctor Who directors instead, since you are a Doctor Who fanboy. That list is in much worse shape that this one is. - AffeL (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, an article of over 24k bytes. That article also provides extra information on the director. Your attempts to use immature name-calling shows me that you have no intent on discussing this civilly. (However, I applaud your attempt at humour in calling me a fanboy, and then saying "(AKA The biggest show in the world)" in the same paragraph.) And you say, "which director has directed what episode in the show"? That's what the list of episodee article is for. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What name calling? You said ("If you take out all of the information already available at List of Game of Thrones episodes, what are you left with? Which episode is already covered in the episodes' article. The number of episodes that have aired? Trivia. Pictures and their captions? Trivial images, and the details of their awards are available elsewhere. So, if you removed all of the trivial information, then yes, you would be left with an article with a size of less than 1,000 bytes. Your argument does not support your opposition of this deletion.") So according to you it does not matter what the size is. But when it's about Doctor Who. It does matter? Explain yourself? - AffeL (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You copied my entire post to me, as if I forgot hat I typed twenty minutes ago. Right. I don't need to explain myself to you - my reasoning is exceptionally clear to those who read it, except to those who attempt to twist my words. I could name series' with more awards, more episodes, more seasons, more viewers; it being the "biggest show in the world" (a blatant falsity) does not validate the existence of this article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Doctor Who list exist then? or are you trying to skip around that question by talking about the reasons why GoT according to you is not the biggest show in the world. Which it obviously is for any one who has not been living under a rock these past years. - AffeL (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You call me a fanboy, then the majority of your post is you being just that. "Biggest show in the world" Again, I applaud your continued attempts at humour! I already stated: The Doctor Who article exists because it also gives extra information not available elsewhere, and because it is a valid article for a series that has run for so long. I look forward to seeing Game of Thrones run for 50+ years. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there are some serious issues with the Doctor Who list. However, we are not discussing that list here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You call that extra information.. I call that trivia. Don't worry about how long GoT will run for.. I'm sure they will not milk the show, like Doctor Who. But now I have to sign of from this long pointless conversation(or what ever it was). For no other reason then that you can not obviously act civil in this little discussion. - AffeL (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you do. You're opposed to anything anti-Game of Thrones, which makes discussions with you unbearable. There is sufficient evidence provided to support the deletion of the nominated article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reason for seperate article to list information already available in episode list and related articles. Doesn't add anything that other articles don't already do -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Just like what others above noted. This passes WP:LISTN. CreativeMan1 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)— CreativeMan1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How so? Because of the one linked article? Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep --passes WP:LISTN and notability!--Submitmaster (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)— Submitmaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note to closing admin. A couple of the "keep" !voters here are advocating "delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who directors. Without wanting to assume bad faith, given the heated discussion above, I think a WP:POINT might be being made here... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is definitely just to make a point. Alex|The|Whovian^? 16:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I can't speak for any other editors you may be referring to, I would like to strongly refute these allegations against me. I honestly think this article just about deserves to be kept due its notability. It is true that I was only made aware of the Doctor Who article because of this deletion discussion, but when I went over there it was really poor quality, and had no references. I'm not going to just ignore a poor article just because I'm arguing that another (similar type of) page should be kept. In deletion discussions, I'm simply taking each article at face value, which is why I nominated that article for deletion, and believe that this article should be kept (albeit I would probably be more of a Weak Keep now that I've seen some of the arguments presented. Cindlevet (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhilash Patel[edit]

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

A low profile individual co-founder of a non-notable company fails to establish independent notability. I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising alone. SwisterTwister talk 16:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Child oxford English Boarding School,mahadevsthan,kapileshwar-16[edit]

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

Nothing suggests that the school is notable enough and Google doesn't help either. It is a middle school with almost zero evidence of coverage in independent third-party sources - should be redirected/merged per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. — Yash^talk stalk 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No any reliable sources found. --Kaulder (contribs | talk) 08:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not at all a likely search term. ansh666 02:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really a valid reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete school where there is no proof of its existence. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Pinkerton[edit]

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

no longer want it online Jwpinkerton (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article may be deleted for a number of reasons, but the subject not wanting an article is generally not one of them - we actually have had somebody who had an article on here, didn't want it, and successfully argued that he was not notable enough for one, but other than that, subjects who are deemed notable enough to receive Wikipedia articles can't really have them taken down simply because they do not want them. You will have to appeal to being too unnotable by Wikipedia's standards. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You are 100% right about a subject wishing their own page removed not being a legitimate criteria. However, in this case I don't see it standing in the way of his wish being granted, considering that it never belonged here in the first place. Sources that merely convey existence rather than notability, not to mention the WP:COI issue with the subject being the author of an article about himself. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it would stand in the way, it's just something we would never take into consideration regardless. But yes, given that the article existed with numerous tags indicating problems, it is very likely to get deleted. As a matter of fact, since the nominator is the page's creator, he might be able to request speedy deletion per G7, although that will depend on how much of the page is merely his own content and not mostly added by anyone else. If it's not entirely his own work anymore, it will have to proceed to the end of this discussion. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EI-END[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. I'm not sure about the content's veracity, but the organisation exists, even though there's not much (1 2 (is this the same organisation?) 3). Adam9007 (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This "organisation" is a blatant hoax and the article is eligible for speedy deletion as such. I had proposed it for speedy deletion before you changed that. In particular,

"This page is about an NGO which claims that has enough money to pay off the whole of the Greek national debt. As the Greek national debt stands at more than 300 billion dollars, the NGO is not known worldwide and its single issue is about paying off the Greek national debt, I think this is an outright hoax article made up just to support this hoax with a wikipedia article. I therefore fullheartedly propose it for a speedy deletion.

I mean, consider the facts, an NGO that no one has heard of before is supposed to have more than 300 BILLION dollars and to have been set up in order to use this money to pay off the Greek national debt, by some Greeks who are again not known on a global or even national scale. Surely, Forbes couldn't have missed their names in its various lists of billionaires for this long... Heracletus (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

It is not therefore surprising that the original website of this "organisation" no longer exists, as this is quite often the case with such hoaxes and scams. The wikipedia article was created only in order to provide some more credibility to this hoax. Heracletus (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We should probably have an article on Artemis Sorras, an excentric who recently got quite a bit of news coverage (e.g [7][8][9]) for his public offer of taking over all of Greece's public debt (and apparently the private debts of its citizens on top of that). Whether his organization has reached the level of being also independently notable, I can't say at the moment. Of course the present article is completely worthless, so nothing will be lost if we delete it and start over if and when we have more material. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per my arguments above. Even the lack of interest in anyone commenting about the deletion proposal kind of proves that this is not a notable thing to have an article about. Some more articles proving that this is a hoax/scam:

http://www.greeknewsonline.com/bank-of-montreal-refutes-ends-claims-that-600-billion-were-deposited-with-them/

and, in Greek:

http://ellinikahoaxes.gr/2014/10/13/soras/

http://ellinikahoaxes.gr/2017/01/11/sorras-parasimo/

http://ellinikahoaxes.gr/2017/01/16/sorras-600-bn/

Heracletus (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with Fut.Perf. above: the man, "Artemis Sorras", exists and made some outlandish claims (like having a net worth an order of magnitude greater than anyone else in the world), but this article has no rescue-able content - it is written from the perspective of someone who has completely eaten all the BS this man has produced. Artemis Sorras could potentially be a notable article, EI-END is certainly not, even if you do consider it to not be a hoax. Google produces nothing but first party stuff and WP mirrors. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 21:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 02:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Gupta (KEI)[edit]

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

A WP:PROMO BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage cannot be found. Notability is not inherited from KEI Industries which is also at AfD. Article created by Special:Contributions/Sangam1234 with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to House of Iturbide. Consensus that subject is not notable. Sandstein 11:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide[edit]

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

There appear to be no reliable sources that discuss this subject. Notability isn't inherited, and subject doesn't seem to be noted for anything, aside from being a member of a family with one member who was very briefly emperor of Mexico, failing WP:Notability (people).Flyte35 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<topic>|list of <topic>-related deletion discussions]]. <signature>

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Wikipedia is not a repository for genealogy. Subject is not notable in his own right. Glendoremus (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia does not keep articles about the "royal line" of a monarchy which exists only on paper, because its holders ceased to be the actual monarchs of anything 150 years ago — someone like this does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists. Rather, he must pass WP:GNG to earn inclusion on the basis of sourceability — but the sole source present here is a family genealogy, which verifies that he exists but fails to demonstrate that his existence is something that an encyclopedia need concern itself with. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to House of Iturbide. There are some Spanish language sources (e.g. [10]) that discuss him in the context of the exiled ruling dynasty. As its head, it would be a plausible search therm. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After setting aside the opinion by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, which addresses only the notability of the work(s) of fiction this is a part of, rather than the notability of this specific element, we're left with only one useable "keep" opinion. Sandstein 11:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camberian Council[edit]

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

This topic does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG via [11], [12], [13], and [14] (although I wonder if that last one might not include some Wikipedia text itself). Not a ton, but that's about 5 minutes of Googling, without me having any of the offline reference works likely to cover such a fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it dozens of times before, and I'll say it dozens of times more: that is not notability. I think you know how it works, but pretend you don't and hope nobody will actually look at your links when you do this. When something is talking about a fictional series and mentions something in direct relation to the plot, that is not and will never be an indication of notability. And I certainly don't know why you would think an edited Wikipedia mirror would be suitable at all. TTN (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and I've told you I don't know how many times that your understanding of notability is incorrect. You know what the real difference between you and me is, though? I understand the topics I comment upon. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Your sources do not fulfill that. Please justify how they could possibly be used in an article when they have no context. TTN (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - TTN is correct. I don't really like deletion, but if that's all you could find, I think this is clearly non-notable as those are all trivial mentions.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 02:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An element from a fictional series spanning a score of books and running for nearly 50 years. Even a cursory review of ISFDB listings would show a significant quantity of reviews and criticism of the series. There's even running, right now at tor.com, an extensive analysis of the series and its characters (more than a year of weekly installments, and not even half done!) by the notable writer/academic Judith Tarr, which itself cites commentary on the series by Ursula LeGuin. Since the nominator has admitted their practice of noncompliance with WP:BEFORE, their opinion should be given little or no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above has nothing to do with the nomination. The series being popular and long-running has no direct correlation with the plot element's notability. TTN (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your usual deceptive selective quoting. The series' long history and established popularity has led to an extensive body of commentary, which you never never bother to check (and often flaunt your misbehaviour). Since you don't bother to review the easy-to-find potential sources, your opinions on notability are, by your own admission, uninformed and should carry no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That still has nothing to do with the nomination. I honestly don't get why everything has to be a battle with you. You have no idea how long spent looking for sources. It could have been three hours, three minutes, or not at all, but you're spinning a false narrative to suit your own needs. People like you and Jclemens seem to have put together some kind of idea that what I'm doing is wrong, so you either wikilawyer or dance around the issue instead of just addressing the claim of notability. The topic is either notable or not notable, so prove it if you think it is notable. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and if I'm right, the topic will be removed now or in a future AfD if notability is not established. TTN (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective quoting is not deceptive, it simply saves room and emphasizes the main point being made by the user. Let's get along and disagree civilly. Keep up your good work TTN, you're very beneficial to wikipedia. Longevitydude (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I directly associated the length and popularity of the series with the large body of commentary it's generated, and which the nominator acknowledges a practice of ignoring, your argument makes no sense whatever. See WP:BEFORE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about the Camberian Council, not the series where it comes from, so I would have to agree with TTN that your argument isn't quite germane.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 02:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThese horrendous articles about characters would be better served merged together. Longevitydude (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with a banned user.

[Comment of a banned user.]

I think you're confusing trolling with someone being overly angry about a non-compliant series of articles being removed from the site. TTN (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- [Comment of a banned user.]
  - It's called clean up and keeping standards. The removal of unnecessary pages allows for the main topics to receive the proper attention they need. Taking D&D as an example, they have hundreds of Wikia-tier fancruft articles, while the 20-30 articles with potential sit in the same useless state. Once all the cruft is gone, there will be more incentive to improve the pages. The same goes for something like Transformers, which is a horrid mess of hundreds of articles. There are probably only five of them that actually need articles, and two of five could likely be FA material if given proper attention. TTN (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - [Comment of a banned user.]
      - This is not Wikia. Interest in a topic is irrelevant. This site has particular standards, so please read up on them before commenting on something like this. TTN (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        [Comment of a banned user.]
        That's a nonsense response by someone who has no argument. I find it fun to clean up junk. Slowly watching the categories deplete to a reasonable state is interesting. I actively admin a Wikia wiki. I've probably made at least eight hundred articles there, but I understand that not one of those articles belongs here. TTN (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        [Comment of a banned user.]
        Please, no personal attacks. I think TTN knows what he's talking about and even if you don't agree you need to treat him with respect and not make faithless accusations against other users. If you think he's doing something wrong I'd recommend bringing this up with a wikipedia arbitrator, but only if you think he's really doing something that seriously violates wikipedia policy. Longevitydude (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        [Comment of a banned user.]
        Please don't compare afds to raping and eating people, it's not at all the same thing. Longevitydude (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        [Comment of a banned user.]
        I used to feel the same way about people who deleted supercentenarian articles. The fact is like gerontology, the information on these fictional characters won't be lost forever if wikipedia deletes them. Supercentenarians are still found on gerontology wiki, well these articles can still be found on battlestar or Dungens and dragons or what ever wiki. I understand your frustration, but sometimes it's best not to think more of something than it really is. Thank you for your passion, you remind me of me a few years ago. Just look at how I acted on the Bob Taggart article's first afd, but guess what, it's on the gerontology wiki so the information I enjoy is still somewhere to be found as will information on any articles TTN gets deleted. TTN to you is what Canadian Paul was to me, but he's actually a very smart guy who disagrees with me on certain topics. TTN is likewise just someone you strongly disagree with. Longevitydude (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        [Comment of a banned user.]

Delete No sources to indicate notability. Keep arguments do not really address policy-based reasons for inclusion, except for Jclemens, and I don't think his sources indicate notability quite well enough.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 02:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, no actually intelligent or fact-based reason for deletion has been presented or even exist, especially with such published sources as this proving notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.201.254 (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
That's the fictional book that the Council is from, 24. It's a primary source. It doesn't count.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 03:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps Merge to Deryni. The group has no real sources that establish any sort of independent notability. The sources brought up by Jclemens are nothing but very brief plot summaries, which do nothing to establish notability. While I think the article should definitely not be left as a stand alone article, I would not be opposed if people wanted to merge it into the main article on the Deryni. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty poorly referenced, so I don't think any of its present content is worthy of retention with a merge.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 22:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the above arguments for Keep have the scent of special pleading from a fandom. There is nothing in the way of WP:RS in the article and the sources cited above are nothing more than plot summaries and passing mentions in annotated bibliographies. That is not significant coverage. Notability of fictional plot elements requires recognition beyond "this exists in this author's popular books." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as unambiguous promotion. No objection to a neutral article being written in its place. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All Lights India International Film Festival[edit]

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

This article is begin used as a live advertisement for a film festival, and is updated each time there is a new event. Clearly violates WP:NOPROMO and fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (non-admin closure) Flat Out (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indywood Film Market[edit]

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

This article is begin used as a live advertisement for a market, and is updated each time there is a new event. Clearly violates WP:NOPROMO and fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spacetoon (Japan)[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax: there does not appear to be any such station named "Spacetoon" either in Fukuoka or in Japan at all. Searching for both "Spacetoon" and its katakana transliteration "スペーストゥーン" result in zero relevant hits. The official website listed in the article is dead, and according to the Wayback Machine, no such website ever existed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might want to look at Spacetoon (Pakistan), Spacetoon English, Spacetoon and Space Power TV and Spacetoon Plus; I think you've stumbled upon a walled garden of HOAX articles that have gotten through our processes simply due to lack of knowledge and outright evading any WP:TV tagging that could have red-flagged any of these articles (notably they mainly contain no information about any channel positions anywhere, and what few do name the positions of other networks entirely; for instance it's clearly unlikely that DirecTV carries it on Channel 82 in the US, and LifeStyle in Australia wouldn't appreciate them taking their rightful claim on channel 106 on Foxtel). There are sites connected to these pages, but since they contain the text "This is an area on your website where you can add text. This section can serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site", they might be someone's creation without any network to connect them to (or more likely it's limited to the Middle East region and a hoaxer decided to go hogwild using this as their base). As for this...to say the entire 'planet' scheduling concept would be accepted by any programmer is questionable in Japanese, English or even Klingon; this article makes no sense at all and is unrescuable, and completely false. Nate • (chatter) 05:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Searching around, it seems at the very least Spacetoon Plus (which is based in Indonesia) is an actual station which does exist. The others also do appear to exist, it's only "Spacetoon Japan" which appears to be a hoax. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a hoax. I also cannot find any indication this exists in Japan. But it is also clear that Spacetoon does exist in the UAE [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], etc, so it is not likely the other articles are hoaxes, even if some of the information in those articles may be incorrect. Michitaro (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it's a hoax, per se, but the Japanese article doesn't mention anything about a Japanese channel. I can't find anything showing this channel currently exists. No prejudice toward recreation if it suddenly becomes real and meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Narutolovehinata5: Contrary to popular belief, the Wayback Machine doesn't archive every site that ever existed, so the lack of any archives there is not evidence that the site never existed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a hoax, but it is also not notable. Also @Narutolovehinata5:, the wayback machine indeed doesn't archive every site that ever existed. The way it works is that a user needs to manually enter in the url of an active page into the wayback url prompt to take a "snapshot". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It seems the website (and the Japan channel for that matter) never existed though, as my search failed to find anything about a Spacetoon presence in Japan, even with additional search terms. Spacetoon is a real channel with affiliates around the world, but Japan doesn't seem to have any of those affiliates. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have CFD'd this one then, worst thing to happen is that it is declined. I so far see this as WP:SNOW though so hopefully the discussion doesn't need to be dragged out for the full 7 days. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neosurrealism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous article was deleted at AfD, but as the previous article was an original essay and this just a one line stub, CSD G4 is not applicable. However, the previous AfD clearly found the underlying subject to be non notable and absolutely nothing to indicate any change in the notability of the subject. Delete for failure to satisfy WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced WP:SPA article claiming that a secret group is organised by a non-notable individual. Nothing to verify nor to indicate notability found in my searches. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nothing suggesting any notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing suggesting notability. (I am always puzzled by the !vote Speedy Delete when it doesn't cite a specific A7 or other speedy, but delete.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as just a stub (the current content appears to be invalid). It undoubtedly exists as an art term; it appears to be era-related to Neo-Dada, but more digging into sources is needed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- one-line unreferenced stub, unverifiable even in principle ("secret formation"). Reyk _YO! 07:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That existing content is rubbish, obviously. However there is no doubt at all that the term, as "Neo Surrealism", exists (take a look at the Google Scholar results). Moreover, it seems to be distinct enough from Surrealism to justify a separate article. However, I don't have access to suitable sources to add content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical, but if you think it's possible to write a different article, by all means blow it up and start over. Reyk _YO! 05:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlike, for example Neo-Expressionism Neosurrealism is not a term that is in common use. There may be any number of artists who refer to themselves as neo-surrealists, but that doesn't make a movement. Mduvekot (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. as WP:HOAX. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bertrand101 for more details. Mkdw ^talk 23:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DWAG[edit]

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

Something smells fishy about this article: I have a suspicion that this article might be a hoax. While both an Ahas Radyo and a DWAG exist, the Ahas Radyo I could find has a similar but completely different callsign (DWAH). As for DWAG, there does appear to be a station with that callsign but it is not based in Manila. See also this page which is the only other hit I could find about this version of DWAG. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced spam, and possibly a hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as yet another handywork of long-term abuser Bertrand101. And yes, that Wikipilipinas page is part of his MO, as he would spam the site with similar nonsense as well. Blake Gripling (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Stockton[edit]

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

Non-notable hip-hop producer. Article is promotional in tone, zero third-party sources were found, and notability is not inherited. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeklens.com[edit]

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

After removing a series of promotional sources and those that dont mention the subject, there's one decent source, a primary link and a dead link. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising overall and basically no claims of significance, all amount to nothing close for an acceptable article in policies. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam; sample: "...its sole purpose is to provide quality Adobe Lightroom’s products for making the post production process an easier experience". Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Holland[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress; fails WP:GNG as well. Quis separabit? 23:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to the first and fifth Google matches, she appeared about 160 times in about 35 series or movies as a star or guest star. I think that meets the first criteria of WP:NACTOR which says Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. If anything, the article should be improved to summarize her filmography. —EncMstr (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject played a recurring character on a 1970s TV sitcom that is still being syndicated. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mason (artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. 2 of the 3 sources are Arts Project Victoria publications which are primary sources, and the third is a (minor) exhibition catalogue which is not independent . Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Flat Out (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I accepted because of the national museum collection. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very borderline wikipedia technical general notability but works being held by the NGA I suggest confirms notability. NGA holding meets WP:CREATIVE/WP:ARTIST. Aoziwe (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at WP:ARTIST#4:

"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

a) Nope. b) No evidence of being a substantial part of a significant exhibition. c) Nope. d)No evidence of being represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. NGA holding alone does not meet criteria. (more info on the Home Sweet Home NGA collection found here and here running 11 October 2003 – 18 January 2004)

Wikipedia is not a free webhost for the collection of artist bios for the Northcote-based studio at Arts Project Australia. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fazly Khabeer[edit]

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

Fails WP:DIRECTOR. Also the movie he is credited with directing has no evidence of being released or even of being filmed at all. Also has no references provided and a search confirms WP:GNG criteria are also not met Jupitus Smart 05:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches, including the tailored Wikiproject India search, are identifying no suitable coverage of the subject of this unreferenced BLP article. There are a couple of listings of his movie, such as [20], but again I am not finding reliable source coverage. Fails WP:DIRECTOR, WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete & its author asked for speedy deletion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Broken™ Radio[edit]

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

Seems like an ad written for this radio show; has a "Click to share on facebook!" link. Carrot official (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatantly promotional. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinion here is quite divided regarding the sources that cover the company, with a general disagreement regarding source validity relative to WP:RS. This discussion has received plenty of input, but no consensus for a particular action has occurred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forever (website)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are no improvement from last AfD. Only coverage is found for this one is local newspaper. it is not enough to establish Wiki Standard. Nominating again for Speedy delete this time. Light2021 (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as examining the articles listed above are in fact advertorials in that one of them says the business "guards your memories!", entirely PR, the next one then is a few paragraphs but it noticeably contains interviewed information and also company information, whereas the other is a clear interview with the CEO, overall clear advertising. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Talati, Sonia (2016-01-08). "The Latest in Family Photo Storage". Barron's. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Downside? Forever claims to be the only photo cloud service that guarantees permanence—storing your photos securely and with data protection “through good times and bad”—but recent events have shown that cybercrime can happen on even the most secure systems. There is no real guarantee of permanence in the digital world. Perhaps the more serious drawback, we think, is the user experience. We uploaded a few photos on a free account, and found the Forever service to be time-consuming. The photo-uploading process was completed after several minutes, longer than it takes on other online storage services we’ve tried. Forever’s management says that’s because the cloud stores its photos in uncompressed file formats, which preserve the original resolution and quality of the photos. The firm is aware of the slow upload issue, however, and says it is working on speeding up the service. It better have if Forever is to migrate from a novelty service to a business that lasts.
2. Shamus, Kristen Jordan (2016-01-30). "Forever CEO is in the business of saving memories". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Founder and CEO of Forever, entrepreneur Glen Meakem, took a chance in 2012 with a start-up that had the potential to revolutionize the way people store their most personal data — their family photos, videos, memories — ultimately, their legacies.
  His idea was to create a secure, reliable online cloud-based storage system that would keep a user's photos, documents, videos and more accessible for a lifetime, plus 100 years, to ensure future generations could access them as well.
  ...
  What's unique about Forever is that it not only has the lifetime plus 100-year guarantee, but it also promises to upgrade what its customers save to the latest technology, so it'll be accessible no matter what format is popular or current at a particular time in history.
3. Todd, Deborah M. (2014-01-15). "Forever.com guards personal memories from prying eyes". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  One year after social media archives site forever.com was launched with plans to corner the long-term digital storage market, a secondary goal of guarding personal memories from prying eyes has taken center stage.
  Part digital family album and part time capsule, Forever targets mature audiences seeking to share and maintain family histories. Ancestral photos, marriage licenses and senior graduation pictures can be uploaded to the site and, before the year is out, audio and video streams also will be able to be saved.
  ...
  The cloud-based social sharing site founded last December by Meakem Becker Venture Capital co-founder Glen Meakem has already reached financial and statistical milestones hard to come by for breakout companies.
  Six months after its May 2012 founding, the company closed a $9 million round of Series A financing funded at least partially through Meakem Becker. One month later, it opened for business in a gleaming Downtown office space on the 20th floor of One PPG Place.
4. Togneri, Chris (2015-09-26). "Downtown-based Forever.com promises to preserve photos, files 100 years beyond death". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Forever started in 2012 and reported revenue of $827,000 last year. Projected revenue for 2015 is more than $3 million, with Meakem anticipating “very rapid growth” within years.
  After a low-profile start, Forever rolled out new features last week, including a website redesign and an app that allows customers to design and print special products. Forever has 30,000 active users and expects to reach 50,000 by year's end, Meakem said.
  ...
  That said, questions remain.
  David Thaw, an information security expert at Pitt's School of Law, said the 100-year guarantee is not ironclad.
  “From reading the terms of service, it looks like they are making a legitimate effort to set up a service with guaranteed longevity,” Thaw said. “But the biggest issue is if Forever goes out of business. ... As with all things, you can't make perfect guarantees and ensure they will be followed because things can happen.”
  Meakem's response: Even if Forever fails, clients' accounts will be safe.
  The Forever Guarantee Fund — established with an initial $1 million investment from Forever, plus ongoing contributions from new transactions — is separate from Forever, he said.
5. Flynt, Jeff (2016-03-09). "Forever Expands Suamico Location to Meet Growing Demand". WTAQ. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Forever guarantees customers who buy “permanent sharable storage” that their photos and memories will be saved for their lifetimes plus 100 years with the goal of many generations beyond.
  The company can make this guarantee because a large portion of the money customers pay for “permanent storage” is deposited into the Forever Guarantee Fund, a restricted fund that acts like a permanent endowment or reserve, with earnings paying for storage, bandwidth, and migration to new file formats for generations into the future.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Forever to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is covered in two nonlocal publications: Barron's and Detroit Free Press.
The article is neutrally written and well sourced. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.
Cunard (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've examined the sources you've cited above. Sources must follow the criteria in WP:RS which states that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Further, sources should be intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. Here's my comments on the sources you've listed.

. Article from "Penta Daily" fails as it is clearly a promotional piece and carries quotes from both the founder, Meakem, and the company itself. It is therefore a PRIMARY source and is not independent. It fails the criteria in WP:RS.
. Article from "Detroit Free Press" fails since it is also clearly a promotional piece and is essentially a question and answer interview with Meakem, with photos. It is therefore a PRIMARY source and is not independent. It fails the criteria in WP:RS.
. Article from "Pittsburgh Post Gazette" fails for the same reasons. It is promotional and relies on quotes from the company and from the founder, Meakem, along with a photo of Meakem. Like the other articles above, it is therefore a PRIMARY source and is not independent. It fails the criteria in WP:RS.
. Article from the Pittsburgh Tribute" fails for the exact same reasons as the others. It is promotional and relies on quotes from the company and from the founder, Meakem, along with a photo of Meakem taken for the article. Like the other articles above, it is therefore a PRIMARY source and is not independent. It fails the criteria in WP:RS.
. Article from "WTAQ" fails for very similar reasons. It is an interview with Meakem and is therefore a PRIMARY source and is not independent. It fails the criteria in WP:RS.

I've also examined the sources in the article and the exact same pattern emerges. None of the sources are independent. Please be aware that sources must be independent - criteria can be found at WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article from "Penta Daily" fails as it is clearly a promotional piece and carries quotes from both the founder, Meakem, and the company itself. – that the article contains quotes from the founder and the company does not make it a primary source or a promotional piece. It is good journalistic practice for journalists to seek comment from the subjects of their pieces.
The article contains a "downsides" paragraph that notes "Perhaps the more serious drawback, we think, is the user experience. We uploaded a few photos on a free account, and found the Forever service to be time-consuming." A promotional piece would not include this critique.
That the articles contain photos of the founder does not make the articles promotional. If that were the case, Wikipedia would be considered promotional merely because it frequently displays photos of article subjects.
Cunard (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the article contains quotes from the founder and the company does not make it a primary source or a promotional piece. For the purposes of Wikipedia and the criteria set out in WP:RS, an article that relies on PRIMARY sources for facts and details is not, by definition, a reliable third party source intellectually separated from the subject. The majority of the article is promotional. I agree that there is a "downsides" paragraph too but then mitagates any possible negativity by finishing with a statement that the company is aware of the issue and is working on it. Hardly critical then and looks like the company were given a right-to-reply to any criticisms. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever (website) participants who have not commented here: Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), Anupmehra (talk · contribs), David Gerard (talk · contribs), and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever (website) closing admin: Euryalus (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing note: Light2021 canvassed on the article's talk page:
I have renominated it for AfD. because of no improvement from last time. SwisterTwister , K.e.coffman, DGG , Lemongirl942. Light2021 (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Cunard (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad-faith nomination of an article that was listed by the same user four months ago (a user who was recently been blocked over abuse of the deletion process). The topic is still is notable as it was during the last AfD. Plenty of non-trivial coverage from sources that easily meet WP:RS, including Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Detroit Free Press, and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually the opposite is true. None of the sources you've mentioned meet WP:RS since none are independent of the subject (and if you read them, it is very clear that the articles epitomize the definition of an advertorial. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and analysis - As I still confirm my delete above, given how this is still a blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a business listing: Forever claims to be the only photo cloud service that guarantees permanence—storing your photos securely and with data protection “through good times and bad”—but recent events have shown that cybercrime can happen on even the most secure systems. There is no real guarantee of permanence in the digital world. Perhaps the more serious drawback, we think, is the user experience, Forever guarantees customers who buy “permanent sharable storage” that their photos and memories will be saved for their lifetimes plus 100 years with the goal of many generations beyond....The company can make this guarantee because a large portion of the money customers pay for “permanent storage” is deposited into the Forever Guarantee Fund, a restricted fund that acts like a permanent endowment or reserve, with earnings paying for storage, bandwidth, and migration to new file formats for generations into the future (Note all of this is clear brochure-content, and thus WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing applies because the policy itself says: Wikipedia is not the place for such simple information as YellowPages, company services, etc. Forever rolled out new features last week, including a website redesign and an app that allows customers to design and print special products. Forever has 30,000 active users and expects to reach 50,000 by year's end, Meakem said, Six months after its May 2012 founding, the company closed a $9 million round of Series A financing funded at least partially through Meakem Becker. One month later, it opened for business in a gleaming Downtown office space on the 20th floor of One PPG Place. What's unique about Forever is that it not only has the lifetime plus 100-year guarantee, but it also promises to upgrade what its customers save to the latest technology, so it'll be accessible no matter what format is popular or current at a particular time in history, Founder and CEO of Forever, entrepreneur Glen Meakem, took a chance in 2012 with a start-up that had the potential to revolutionize the way people store their most personal data — their family photos, videos, memories — ultimately, their legacies. His idea was to create a secure, reliable online cloud-based storage system that would keep a user's photos, documents, videos and more accessible for a lifetime, plus 100 years, to ensure future generations could access them as well. Next the comments are not based in policy at all and they are simply suggestive guidelines. All of this has the same blatant consistency of "Company has to say this or that", "Company CEO shares his ideas", "Company shares their funding and finances", All of that blatantly still violates the policy WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing. If this is honestly the best we have, it's simply republished materials, and that itself violates WP:CORPDEPTH since that itself says materials must not be press releases or similar. Any article that is closely focused with what the company advertised at its own website is clearly not independent, because no one but the company itself would say it. Next, all of the sources are clear publications, such as a radio station, which are known for simply airing whatever commercials the company wants, and that itself still violates WP:CORPDEPTH since it's not a significant source. As it is, this company is based in Pittsburgh, so it's only obvious that their local publication would advertise a local business, as all of them choose, and thus also violates WP:CORPDEPTH since it says such news stories are not notable-causing. The basis of "The article is still notable since the last AfD" is not acceptable because we've always renominated articles and there's no policy against it. Next, each article above is from each company financial quarter, not a consistent flow of coverage (see above, January 2016, January 2016, September 2016) so it's not even satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH either since it's not consistent, so that emphasizes the fact it was simply to motivate their own advertising. SwisterTwister talk 15:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note all of this is clear brochure-content – I have not seen "clear brochure-content" list the downsides of the service which the Barron's article does. I have not seen "clear-brochure content" note that "It better have [improved its speed] if Forever is to migrate from a novelty service to a business that lasts." Cunard (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed this is WP:CORPSPAM. *None* of the sources meet the criteria in WP:RS - none are independent and sources inevitably are puff pieces that quote the founder, Meakem, or the company. The article fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Looking for an independent article is nigh-on impossible as Meakem appears to be quoted every time and articles are invariable promotional in nature. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It should be kept because it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. It is as simple as that and none of the other issues belong to this discussion. Again, on how does it meet the required standard, in my opinion, has been demonstrated by multiple reliable sources currently cited in article and available on a simple web-search. Additionally, I fail to notice any convincing argument in favour of deletion. (I'm very likely to not answer any comment for the time being). Anup [Talk] 22:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've gone through *all* of the sources provided here and in the article and *none* of the sources are reliable or independent of the subject and *all* of the sources are advertorials. Can you point to a single source that meets the criteria in WP:RS and does *not* contain quotes or references from Meakem or the company? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet notability standards, in particular, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." All of the articles cited above are promotional. Glendoremus (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles cited above are promotional. – the Barron's article says:
Downside? Forever claims to be the only photo cloud service that guarantees permanence—storing your photos securely and with data protection “through good times and bad”—but recent events have shown that cybercrime can happen on even the most secure systems. There is no real guarantee of permanence in the digital world. Perhaps the more serious drawback, we think, is the user experience. We uploaded a few photos on a free account, and found the Forever service to be time-consuming. The photo-uploading process was completed after several minutes, longer than it takes on other online storage services we’ve tried. Forever’s management says that’s because the cloud stores its photos in uncompressed file formats, which preserve the original resolution and quality of the photos. The firm is aware of the slow upload issue, however, and says it is working on speeding up the service. It better have if Forever is to migrate from a novelty service to a business that lasts.
An article that criticizes Forever cannot be considered to be promotional.
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article notes:
That said, questions remain.
David Thaw, an information security expert at Pitt's School of Law, said the 100-year guarantee is not ironclad.
“From reading the terms of service, it looks like they are making a legitimate effort to set up a service with guaranteed longevity,” Thaw said. “But the biggest issue is if Forever goes out of business. ... As with all things, you can't make perfect guarantees and ensure they will be followed because things can happen.”
Forever says that its customers' photos will be saved for their lifetimes plus 100 years. A promotional article would not say Forever's "100-year guarantee is not ironclad" and then quote an information security expert to say that it's not guaranteed because what if "Forever goes out of business".
Cunard (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You make much the same points above and I won't repeat the reponse here but I'll summarise by saying that the sources are not independent from the subject and therefore fail as reliable third-party sources.

Your point about the security expert comments is disingenuous to the article contents. In the interests of complete disclosure you should also include the very next line (and possible the ones after as well) which state “From reading the terms of service, it looks like they are making a legitimate effort to set up a service with guaranteed longevity,” Thaw said. “But the biggest issue is if Forever goes out of business. ... As with all things, you can't make perfect guarantees and ensure they will be followed because things can happen.” Meakem's response: Even if Forever fails, clients' accounts will be safe. The Forever Guarantee Fund — established with an initial $1 million investment from Forever, plus ongoing contributions from new transactions — is separate from Forever, he said. “Every month we drop more money in,” Meakem said. “We think we're overfunded, which is good for the customer.” The money is invested in diversified stocks and bonds and is designed to earn 8 percent a year, Meakem said. Four percent of the fund profits is spent on the site services, including security and migration issues. If Forever does fail and the accounts can no longer be maintained, the terms of service state that the fund will be used to return content to clients. Giving the company the right to reply (to faint criticism to start with) and turn it into yet-more-promotional-blurb is the epitome of promotional placed advertorials. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the reliable sources referenced in the article, I don't see why they wouldn't count towards notability. The same person sending the same article to AFD a second time, and pinging 5 people on the talk page he felt would agree with him to canvass them over here, is ridiculous. Dream Focus 10:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you have a different idea of what constitutes a "reliable source" than other WP editors. Can you list the sources you consider to meet the criteria here please? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburg Business Times interviewed the guy about this when he first started, there a video interview there in the long written article about it. [21] I believe the ample coverage given by the reliable source of the Post Gazette counts. [22] Dream Focus 17:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the PBT interviewed the guy and yes, the article is another perfect example of an advertorial. The article relies on data and information provided directly by Meakem. The article has a lot of tells but especially sentences that comfirm that the information originates from Meakem by starting with words such as "Meakem describes", "Meakem told me", "Meakem gave me a tour", etc. The data and information is from a PRIMARY source (can't get more PRIMARY than Meakem) and fails the criteria in WP:RS since the source is not "third-party" nor separate from the subject. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When anyone is interviewed or written about, they quote them. I doubt they are being paid to do that. You have no evidence of that at all. Anyone successful in business is going to be sought after by the media. Dream Focus 18:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are simply weak source - what the company/representative says about itself. Independent (on the subject of this article) coverage would be more useful (eg. reviews of their services). Pavlor (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles have to meet a particular test for notability and there are policies and guidelines to help determine the suitability or otherwise of each subject. One of the key tests for organizations WP:ORGCRITE states that a company is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are independent of the subject. While interviews with company personnel can be used for trivial data, these sources are ignored for the purposes of determining notability as they are not independent of the subject. WP:CORPDEPTH states that acceptable sources specifically *exclude* quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.

So while it is true that articles written about notable organizations may often include a quote from personnel, there are also other factors such as the nature of the publication itself, the expertise of the author or journalist and context of the entire article must be taken into consideration. In this case, it is very obvious that these articles are advertorials and it is not an accident that every article contains an interview and quotations from Meakam advertising his company. WP:ORGIND states that sources used to support a claim of notability specifically *excludes* advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization. It is difficult to accept that these articles are not promotional since they all contain an accurate copy of the company's key messages and USP and allow the CEO to rebutt some criticisms. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about interviews at all in that link. If a company is so notable they interview people about it, its the same as a book being notable because they interviewed the writer of it. The news source is independent of that company, they don't have the same parent company owning them. That's what "independent of the subject" means. Dream Focus 00:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage independent of the article subject in reliable sources = notability under the current standards. Not liking the prose is, as always, a content issue. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I do not find the sources presented here meeting WP:CORPDEPTH so than an NPOV article can be written about the subject. The local sources also fail WP:AUD and are insufficient for notability. The coverage is routine, "local company does well" content. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Possible canvassing apart, having checked the sources I also am of the opinion that this is artspam. Multiple sources all saying more or less the same thing, multiple cites to the same sources, do not notabilty make, and there is also the question of dead links. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rangers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page is 100% promotional. A single user has been adding loads of promotional material that has destroyed any encyclopedic sense the article may have once had. Beyond that, I don't see any for of notability here. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~, copyvio. Google almost any sentence in the article and it will be a word-for-word copy of a sentence somewhere on one of the pages of royalrangers.com. Smmurphy^(Talk) 10:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I think it is about half copyvio. The history section is very similar, but somewhat longer than http://royalrangers.com/aboutus/history/. The core program elements section is copied point-by-point rather than summarized. The special programs section just takes a few sentences from http://royalrangers.com/programs/special/, The junior subsections of the training section are sentences taken from http://royalrangers.com/training/junior/ Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, roll back to [23] and cleanup, as youth section of World Assemblies of God Fellowship; 12-year-old stable article with few issues before this. Needs a weeding, definitely, and better sourcing, but I have been aware of them for 35 years. Newbie editor does not seem willfully disruptive, and goes so far to ask, "Is it okay?" in edit summaries. Suggest someone mentor new editor. I do not have the time as starting new job.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ps-the 3 European versions seem much more modest. Once weeded, I suggest this article get one of those locks to experienced-editors only, and have suggestions/requests for edits made on the talk page.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my preferred version to something akin to [24]-it's modest, to the point and not redlink-heavy--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is clearly significant, and non-speedy delete seems to me unnecessary. Starting from the current state, I !vote keep. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a rollback. The organization has been around for a while and has a widespread presence. However the article needs to be watched. --Erp (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as a youth programme of a major denomination and operating in 90 countries, this is certainly notable. If the denomination has not complained of copyvio, I do not think we need be too concerned about that issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is certainly notable, but the copyvio must be removed whether the denomination cares or not. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Aksenov[edit]

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

Articles about Russian politicians is not Russian Wikipedia in Ukrainian it is tabled in the removal of a probability of 99, 9%. Denis Aksenov been low post and does not comply with policy relevance.--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear listing and all it's meant to be apparently as there's nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Youth chamber president of a metropolitan regional Duma is not a notable political position. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEI Industries[edit]

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

Clear advertising with clear signs the company itself contributed to it, not only in the simplicity this is only what's advertised to clients, but the sources are clear paid press, press releases in both publishing and republishing and all other triviality; nothing else found was better at all which is simply PR at all; we've established the notorious establishing of advertising in these subjects and places, and this is no different, regardless of the stock exchange, since there's questionability in those as it is. Overall, this is enough violations for removal in our policies since we never accept advertising; note the persistence in the past 2 deletions, and this current article started immediately after (note that all accounts suggest employees and IPs are clear company-used). SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- despite being a public company, the subject of the article appears to be rather unremarkable. The sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH to build a balanced, non-promotional article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an international, publicly traded company with income for the year ending Mar16 of approximately ~~1 billion dollars~~. Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

my calculation is 1 Cr Rupees =$160 thousand, so a/c the infobox it is ~~3,000 Cr~~ 2030 Cr. Rupees = $320 million, not $1 billion. DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you are getting "3000 Cr. Rupees", or what period of time this represents. I documented the 1 billion for the year ending Mar16 on the talk page as part of a refutation for your speedy delete. Unscintillating (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my typo: a/c the article's infobox it was 2,030 Crore. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC), which is = $320 M. What's your figure from? DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a cn tag on that figure and I know because I put it there. So your source remains unknown. The figure I got was from gurufocus.com. But I see now that that page says, "All numbers are in their own currency." Which if that means 958 million rupees may be closer to 15 million than 1 billion dollars. I've again looked but was not able to find numbers to verify. Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to their own 2016 report, they had total revenue of 25,261,000rs which amounts to approx US$371,000 -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: I'm seeing on that page "(Rs, in Millions)", which if that means 25,261,000,000 Indian rupees, Google tells that is "371591836.10000 US dollars" or $370 million. Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the stock is part of "micro-cap" stocks, so it's got to be closer to $15M, definitely not a $1B. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not even. See above. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Johnny O. Target page seems likely to survive AfD. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny O (album)[edit]

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

It didn't enter the charts. Non-notable album, non-notable artist. Only ONE source. Patient Zero^talk 13:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Johnny O if that article is kept, otherwise delete. Non-notable, non-charting album. ValarianB (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Seems a sensible suggestion. I couldn't find any reliable source to push this into the notability belt on any of the notability guidelines. Lourdes 03:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revista Rossa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Revista Rossa (2nd nomination)

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

Revista Rossa is an obscure german short film (Student project), not featuring Mike Vogel- Marcel Miller has heavily manipulated films he has appeared in (i.e. his imdb profile) E-Kartoffel (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead actress: Luisa Wietzorek http://luisa.tv/vita/schauspiel/ E-Kartoffel (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has posted intentionally misleading clips, of allegedly the "Mike Vogel movie Revista Rossa (2009)", that are actually of an unrelated Russian feature film, see Youtube link -E-Kartoffel (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks any coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete while the Mike Vogel "inclusions" were easy to fix, German filmmaker Lars Dreyer-Winkelmann has not made enough of a splash with this one. WP:NF is failed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen Plasma[edit]

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

Does not appear notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are references, but one is primary, the other is now deleted. No other stuff prove notability. NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 13:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient indicia of notability. While you're at it, the article Reaper (band) probably also qualifies for AfD. Montanabw^(talk) 19:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two full re-listings, no consensus for a particular outcome has occurred in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Guinard[edit]

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

Insufficient notability. Supposed IOT leader, but no evidence offered. One amongst many. scope_creep (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep. GS h-index of 28 may be just enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in very high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as the highest citations are only 474, not nearly enough to be genuine significance. SwisterTwister talk 23:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is the h-index generated. It is interesting that a scientific approach is being taken to Afd. scope_creep (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam: "... a long hands-on experience in building the Internet of Things both in the cloud..." (wow). The subject is not remarkable enough to overcome the promotionalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page talks about me (but no I did not write it). I did remove facts that were wrong and the promotionalism I disagreed with. I also added sources. I would of course understand a deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.172.154.138 (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal keep. Listed in Postscapes IoT Top Blogs and Experts (top 10) http://www.postscapes.com/top-100-thinkers-tracking-the-internet-of-things/?page=2#influencers Busybi (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Ten publications with over 100 citations each should be enough for WP:PROF#C1, even in a high-citation field. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan timeline of Presidents of Ukraine[edit]

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

This article should be deleted like List of Presidents of Ukraine by longevity because it is just a graphical version of that list. The page should be deleted because the page fails WP:N as the underlying concept is not notable and the info can be found at the main article. -KAP03^Talk 23:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is indeed a single graphics file -- violating WP:NOTIMAGE -- that does indeed appear to duplicate List of Presidents of Ukraine by longevity. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - graphical duplication of recently deleted article Spiderone 06:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~Manila's Poging Juan 09:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make it clear to me. First of all, I didn't know about the recently-deleted List of Presidents of Ukraine by longevity. I'n not the author of it, nor a socketpuppet of the one who created that article. I don't know what's the content, is it like List of Portuguese Presidents by longevity, List of Italian Presidents by longevity, and the rest? Can someone present me the content? If that article's content is same to those article examples I have presented to you, why have you deleted that article and don't care about the others?~Manila's Poging Juan 09:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, this graphical timeline is partnered after Lifespan timeline of Presidents of the United States and the rest. There is a timeline then only one or two references are enough, the Lifespan timeline of Presidents of the United States has no references at all while this one has at least one reference. Then what's the sense of endorsing the deletion of this 'lifespan graphical timeline' article? If you endorse the deletion of this one, do you also have guts to endorse also the deletion of some of the rest? ~Manila's Poging Juan 09:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; we can't use the existence of these articles to justify the notability of this one. For the record, I think that those articles that you've linked are equally failing the general notability guideline. Spiderone 09:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that we have an entire category Category:Graphical timelines for such "graphical timelines," which I frankly thought were contra-policy. As they are not, I've removed my objection to this one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the country leader timelines (and the one for Tamil Nadu too). I fail to see the purpose of this exercise, except to make pretty graphics. Leaders lived before and (usually) after their term(s) in office. So? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1) Can you link that 'one for Tamil Nadu? (2) So you mean all of the rest do not deserve an article? I think there are no Wikipedia policies stated that a lifespan timeline of leaders do not deserve an article? Well, the fact that there is a reference (WP:REF) supporting the article (Lifespan timeline of Presidents of the United States) and the birth year and death year of the country's leaders of the lifespan timeline supports the timeline is fine. ~Manila's Poging Juan 10:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Graphical list of chief ministerial tenures and important events of Tamil Nadu isn't even for a country. (2) Yes, especially the absurdly goofy Lifespan timeline of heirs and pretenders to the Romanian throne and Lifespan timeline of Romanian royal consorts. Just because there's no policy expressly prohibiting X doesn't mean it's notable. And maybe there's one out there; they are so many of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, delete the rest of them too and propose changing the wording of WP:NOTIMAGE to clarify that "no accompanying text" means (referring to the second sentence) no accompanying encyclopedic context. Commons is a repository of images; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This is an image; not an encyclopedia article. TimothyJosephWood 20:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see this discussion regarding the guideline. TimothyJosephWood 20:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move (1) While y'all suggest that this graphical timeline be delete, I have a nicer suggestion. Why just can't we move it to President of Ukraine and make a subtitle named, Lifespan timeline of Presidents of Ukraine or simply Lifespan timeline This can be a great contribution to the article where it will be moved. The effort and time lent to make this timeline will not be wasted, then. It is because, I think that the timeline is not useless, it's just that it's lack of text and it can correspond to President of Ukraine article. What do you think, guys? (2) I also suggest that there must be a discussion with of course, the admins about the inclusion or non-inclusion of Lifespan timelines and Graphical timelines of the head of country or smaller units. (e.g, lifespan timeline of...).~Manila's Poging Juan 09:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability. Unless presidents of Ukraine are, uniquely, taken out the back and shot once they reach a certain age or serve for a certain timeperiod, or there is some other significant aspect connected only to the lifespan of Presidents of Ukraine, none of this seems in any way notable and all the content is really just an OR graphic. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this is significant at all, let alone encyclopaedically significant. I can imagine that there might be an encyclopaedic discussion on comparison of age at start of presidency and length of term, or about the longevity of presidents compared to some other group of Ukrainians. However this chart (which will get even more unwieldy in the future) will not be relevant to either of those topics. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Presidents of Ukraine or a similar article. No sense leaving a clickbait redlink and redirects are cheap. This is, essentially, an image and as such is inadequate for a stand-alone article. Wikipedia is not a scrapbook. Montanabw^(talk) 19:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 02:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A M Anvar[edit]

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

Fails basic WP:BIO. Given three decent sources mention the subject once. The only thing I'm sure of is the subject being an alternative medicine practitioner (rest of the removed credentials seem dubious) with an hospital with some limited news coverage. Couldn't find a source covering the subject beyond that.

The page was like this before, with an entire list of misc non-notable awards likely taken from the subject's homepage "in the press". An alternative medicine practitioner with stuff like "expertise in neurology and neuromuscular diseases" in the lead itself, WP:FRINGE/PS. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:DOCTOR. Sources are suspect at best. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. RoCo^(talk) 12:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this recently-created article there are only four sources cited. The first source is from the website of the hospital he works at, the third is a conference website which lists him as a speaker at an event in London. There are two mentions in a newspaper: in the second reference he is named as giving an awareness session to 18 students and four teachers; the fourth reference is a newspaper article listing him as the recipient of an award in 2009, although I cannot see that the award itself is notable. Notability had not been demonstrated when judged against WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Plug Records[edit]

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

Does not satisfy musical notability or corporate notability. Google search finds no third-party hits, only the obvious vanity hits. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously promotional material from a guy who's trying to start a label with a bunch of acts that don't meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable label created by non-notable people with non-notable acts, and obviously promotional besides. TimothyJosephWood 20:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JUCY[edit]

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

Part of a confirmed mass paid advertising campaign in which multiple accounts were used, listed sources are simply published and republished business announcements and mentions, no actual substance since it's clear the company authored all of it. Searches then mirrored it finding republished business announcements in different medias, a clear sign of PR and using it when nothing else exists. SwisterTwister talk 01:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article does not seem to be overly POV, and even if it were, that a cleanup criteria, not a deletion criteria. This company has clearly received significant coverage in reliable sources:

* Sachs, Andrea; Sachs, Andrea (2016-03-03). "In California, these minivans-turned-RVs take car camping to the next level". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2017-01-18.

* "Trying out adult camping with a Jucy camper van - The Boston Globe". BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved 2017-01-18.

* Mohn, Tanya. "A More Compact Camper Van". In Transit Blog. Retrieved 2017-01-18.

* "Test-driving the Jucy, a camper for the rest of us | Travel | Dallas News". Dallas News. 2014-11-14. Retrieved 2017-01-18.

* "RV 2.0: Downsizing helps new generation hit the road". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2017-01-18.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable company, Meets WP:GNG; a lot of people in NZ would probably be searching for 'jucy'. J 947 19:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a significant NZ vehicle rental company. Article is marginal but topic would meet standards WP:GNG - NealeFamily (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable company. Looking at the edit history, at least three well-respected NZ editors have worked on the page, so it's not just a bald republishing of PR. I see no reason the company name should be in all capitals, though, but to avoid confusion won't bother moving it until the AFD is closed. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Art Deco buildings in Sydney. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wroxton[edit]

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

Unreferenced and tagged for notability for the past 6 years. This is an art-deco building which is mentioned (or rather listed) here and there but I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore believe that it doesn't quite meet the notability requirements for inclusion. Pichpich (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a short piece about the lobby being remodeled [25], and a mention as a historical influential building here [26]]. This is not much. MB 05:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Art Deco buildings in Sydney, where it is already listed, and add any relevant comments as a note there. Does not seem to be notable in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Aoziwe. The suggested target article is fine and could include photos and more information about each item. The Wroxton really does exist and is a cool-looking Art Deco building, per blog with photo here. --do ncr am 22:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose If an editor is wiling to turn this into an article on Art Deco in Elizabeth Bay, it could be a plausible article. Otherwise, Redirect to List of Art Deco buildings in Sydney where it is listed among a number of other art deco buildings in the same suburb (all redlinked). I did add two WP:RSes covering it from the angle of rising apartment values consequent to the building's restoration to it's 1930s look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Good Witch (TV series)#Cast. Apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Matthew Bond[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doing a clean relist due to the last nomination being overwhelmed by WP:SPAs. Original rationale for deletion was:

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR. The sources are extremely questionable or flat out non-reliable (IMdB). The question for the community probably comes down to whether being named for a Young Artist Award confers notability
— Brianhe (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I have semi-protected this page so it doesn't happen again. Abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although there are claims of significance here, I see none of the needed substance to convince an acceptable article apart from the connected works, hence too soon in his career. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:ANYBIO. In addition to the 2015 Young Artist Award, won another award in 2014 (as Rhys Bond): [27], [28]. That award does not have a wiki page (perhaps because of its relative newness), so it's debatable whether to list in the "Awards" chart (although it could perhaps be mentioned in the prose of the article). Also meets WP:GNG in that there is significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The sources may not be the kind of sources that persons over the age of 40 are likely to consume, but they are the kinds of sources that tweens and teens (his audience) consume, e.g. Just Jared, TVRuckus, etc. Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, your statement leaves me puzzled. First, you say this other award is too new to be noted here, yet you cite ANYBIO which requires the award to be "well-known and significant". Second, I just checked out just jared (can't link due to blacklist) and I'm sorry, to me this is tissue-thin celeb "news" blurbs wrapped around publicity photos, no matter who the intended audience. I didn't learn anything new beyond the fact that this person goes ice skating with other celebs from time to time. Where's the substantial depth of coverage of either his life or acting career required by GNG? - Brianhe (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, as I stated, he already has one award already listed in the article; I merely noted yet another award, which goes even further to address notability. I did not say the second award I mentioned "is too new to be noted here", I said it "does not have a wiki page (perhaps because of its relative newness), so it's debatable whether to list in the 'Awards' chart (although it could perhaps be mentioned in the prose of the article)". That award (Joey Awards) is already mentioned in 30+ Wikipedia articles: [29], [30]. GNG does not require a specified type of coverage, but if you want coverage of his life and acting career, I see: [31] (TVRuckus). Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Good Witch (TV series)#Cast ~~Ties That Bind (TV series)#Cast_and_characters~~, where the subject is mentioned; the actor is not yet independently notable, and the nature of the award suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for him to have a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's redirected anywhere, it should be to the ongoing series Good Witch (TV series)#Cast, where he has been in (all) 22 episodes so far and is higher in the billing order. Ties That Bind only had one season (2015), was only 10 episodes, and he was lower in billing order. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense; I updated above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support the redirect to Good Witch. - Brianhe (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect no broad or indepth coverage; fails GNG. Does not yet fulfil the three main criteria of WP:NACTOR. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenija Lukich[edit]

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

Not notable television presenter. Fails WP:ENT with no multiple significant roles. Some trivial coverage in sources, but not enough weight to warrant an article. Would support redirect to E! (Australia) in regards to her sole role. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes WP:GNG. The coverage is not trivial at all - there are several articles entirely about her. ("Significant" in the GNG does not mean coverage about "important" matters - it refers to the depth of the coverage rather than the content. So it is important not to confuse "trivial" in the notability sense - i.e. passing mentions - with "trivial" in the sense of "frivolous".) StAnselm (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this person easily pass GNG? Of the 4 sources, two relate to the fact a woman got married, and the other 2 about winning a contest for a job. She is not known beyond one role, meaning it may qualify as WP:BIO1E. This bio article is essentially WP:PSEUDO. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No - one role is not the same as one event. Plenty of people are notable only for one role. St Anselm (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but as BIO1E says, it doesn't mean the person is notable enough to warrant an article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources on Google News, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep There is lot more independant secondary guff out there than referenced in the article, so NEXISTS applies. But it does show signs of being a very little bit famous for being a very little bit famous. If not kept then probably a definite upmerge with a redirect to a Presenters section in E! (Australia), which should be there anyway? Aoziwe (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoziwe: E! Australia only has one presenter - she is it. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If she is the only presenter then the E! Australia article without her is pretty lame! So there should be something in that about her surely; without the article is weak. Which would make most of her article redundant so perhaps I am now leaning more to a definite upmerge and redirect. Aoziwe (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching through Bing and Google news brings up quite a bit of news coverage over the last two years or so. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G5: violation of block on User:Mokezhilao. Primefac (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juanpi (company)[edit]

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

Promotional article about company that does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. This should honestly be a speedy for G11, but the tag was removed by Adam9007 because the article cites sources. I don't think that's a valid reason, but nevertheless, I'll bring to AfD. agtx 18:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising sourced by company announcements and listings, none of which establish the substance we consider necessary for an article, let alone both notability and significance, and our essential policies alone allow deletion. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to pre-existing article Juanpi APP which is sourced and notable. @SwisterTwister: please try searching 卷皮 in news. @Agtx: would you be willing to help with a merge and scrub? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is just as bad, maybe worse. Its content is almost entirely promotional. Frankly, it should probably be deleted too. agtx 19:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect and cleanup. Both articles do contain blatant advertising at present, but they are both well sourced, between them they contain more than enough encyclopedic material for a good stub, and an app with 100 million subscribers is notable (and if the guidelines can somehow be twisted to suggest otherwise, they badly need some work). Andrewa (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; nothing to salvage here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam; nothing to salvage here. Renyuren (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote by blocked sock agtx 04:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was created by a sock of a blocked user. agtx 04:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kadie Lynn Roberson[edit]

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

Non notable child singer who was only a semifinalist on AGT. She hasn't done anything noteworthy yet, and is not big as a singer. Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON no album or chart success. Not a finalist. Some WP:RS sourcing but that has to do with the contest. Under age BLP article requires caution in its approach. Karst (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources in the article, which I think are enough to pass WP:SINGER. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indycar broadcasters[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of Television broadcasters of sports events. T v x1 01:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTTVGUIDE. TimothyJosephWood 20:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there may be original research concerns with this article, the NOTDIRECTORY and NOTTVGUIDE concerns are questionable. NOTTVGUIDE, as noted on the policy page, applies to future events and this article doesn't seem to meet the policy-based definition of a directory. Lepricavark (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Og[edit]

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

Not enough coverage to justify a standalone article. Many of the cannabis strain articles are sourced by a couple vendor websites, and should be deleted or merged to Cannabis strains. --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination also applies to Bubble Gum Cannabis Strain, Chemdawg 4, Chernobyl Cannabis Strain, Cinderella 99, Fire OG, Golden Pineapple, and Strawberry Cough.

Not yet. As an experienced editor you know that this nomination does not apply to those other articles and until you have placed a nomination tag on them, linking to this discussion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry. I may be an experienced editor, but I am actually not a frequent AfD nominator or participant. Thanks for the reminder. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added nomination tags, hopefully correctly. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. Notifying the article creators is considered good Afd etiquette, but is not required. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like an ad, and has no use at all. note: A couple more, (almost) all the articles made by this guy fit.JerrySa1 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it's claimed to be a medical marijuana strain, I've added to medicine sorting page, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A few of the articles list biological effects which need much much stronger sourcing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles mentioned by nom. It's not just a notability issue; it's a combination of advertorial editing and suspect PR sourcing. I would recommend deletion of all; and if someone is interested, they can add the details later to Cannabis strains, as the nom suggests. Thanks. Lourdes 08:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Harrison Lowe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. I have requested this article to be restored because the requested speedy deletion by Clifford Mill was wrong, and the article should be nominated here at AfD instead. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for deletion This article I suggested for deletion on 30 March 2016 has been resuscitated. Now a proved child of Mrs Fitzherbert and George IV would indeed be highly notable, but in the 180 years since she died nobody has found any evidence and no claim has been accepted. For, like this one, they are fantasies. I would ask you to consider the quality of the feeble proofs offered in the article:

The claim of royal descent comes from Barnes' extensive personal journal, which establishes that she believed herself to be the daughter of King George IV; the yet unpublished, and personally held document is reported to contain details and dates that corroborate the claim.

If this alleged document contains corroboration, why is it not available for public scrutiny?

There is apparent current lack of available historical evidence connecting Lowe to George and Fitzherbert, and also of evidence of financial or other support going to Lowe.”

The lack of evidence amounts to no evidence. Are we really meant to believe the following flaky sources:

a self-published Facebook page?
a Reality TV fan site?
a gravestone erected in 2009 by descendants promoting the claim?

The only sensible option in my view is, yet again, to delete the article. Clifford Mill (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFRINGE. It's adorable that someone made her a Facebook profile, linked to her Wikipedia article, and then sourced the Wikipedia article to Facebook, but this is FRINGE OR par excellence. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails completely for all the abovementioned reasons. It appears that the so-called 'journal' was written by Hannah's daughter Ann at Bristol in 1901. In 1851 she said that she was born at Coventry and only later changed her story. Hannah Harrison Lowe was almost certainly the daughter of William Lowe and Hannah Harrison who married at Holy Trinity Church, Coventry, on 30 July 1791, details published on my website in 2012, but completely ignored. AnthonyCamp (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nav (Rapper)[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper. Has no EP or full length projects. reddogsix (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Although I found these sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, they might not be enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO in this case. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Adam9007 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't seem to establish notability. Article lacks independent reliable sources. Only source listed is a music download website listed in the info box. Google and NYT searches for both Nav (Rapper) and Navraj Goraya provides nothing to establish notability, mostly blogs, press releases and music download sites. Doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. CBS527^Talk 02:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. To quote the Complex piece Adam found, "Nothing about Nav has really been confirmed yet, but as he gains prominence, it seems destined that more information will come out about him." (That was in July; Inverse said something similar as recently as the end of December.) We really need the confirmation (the usual, significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources) in order to have an encyclopedia entry. Once we do, then great; for now, TOOSOON. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The "keep" arguments are not the strongest but there is clearly no consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrex Corporation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cambrex Corporation (2nd nomination)

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

Clear business PR as the sources are not satisfying our policies about companies and what they contain, this search emphasizes there's then nothing but PR and what they've said themselves in their own publishings; none of this is inherited any automatic notability simply because of the stock exchange or the fact they have a few million in income, because WP:NOT has a higher place in this and it allows removal of anything used as a business webhost. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced corporate spam on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange with more than $400 million in revenue in a key area in the pharmaceutical field. The claim of "corporate spam" is patently false and if there is anything that constitutes "spam", the proper solution is editing, not deletion. There are ample sources about the company available in a Google search using Cambrex or its ticker symbol CBM as a search term. Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep company is certainly notable, the article just needs to be expanded. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a quick news search will readily show, there are hundreds of recent articles in reliable independent sources about this company's business activities. The article in its current state certainly needs those independent sources added to it, but the tone and content don't strike me as promotional. Problems with this article should be dealt with through editing, not through deletion. Gnome de plume (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these sources are substantial, https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cambrex+Corporation%22&tbm=nws ? Because what I see are tech blogs, announcements, listings, quotes and other similar triviality? SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment SwisterTwister, you put this as a second nomination but I can't seem to find the first nomination. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, company listed on NYSE. PK T(alk) 22:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So currently all we have for substance is the NYSE, but our policies specifically need good substantial coverage, in which I'm only finding trivial business announcements, press releases and all. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- by "corporate spam" I mean this:

In 2007, the firm decided to focus on its core competencies... (promo content)
Steve Klosk was appointed CEO, while remaining President... (non notable CEO)
To broaden their biocatalysis platform... (promo language)
In 2014, they acquired Zenara Pharma to enhance its drug product formulation capabilities... (promo language)

Each sentence is basically promotion. This content belongs on the company web site, not in an encyclopedia. No sources have been presented at this AfD that provide independent, reliable coverage. WP:LISTED is not a pass to a "free article" absent sources and with a clear violation of WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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