Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 March	20 March >

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem for the Setting Sun[edit]

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

Recently released novel that does not meet notability for WP:NBOOKS. References are from publisher, reddit or author's YouTube. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC) What other sources apply to a book other than official channels dedicated to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrow20001117 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looking at the publisher's website, this seems to be barely removed from vanity press, if it even is. I can't find any RS reviews. Blythwood (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Irredeemable advertisement, the subject isn't even mentioned in the two footnotes. Bishonen | talk 21:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kairos Society[edit]

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

Promotional spam. Neither of the two references even mentions the word "Kairos". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of directional name places[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTNAME, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT. A full list should also include places like Eston, Norton, Sutton and Weston; and Essex, Sussex and Wessex; and Norfolk and Suffolk.
And that's just in English. How about, for example, Noord-Holland, Vladivostok, Sul and Zachód, Szczecin? Narky Blert (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article links to 52 (fifty-two) different DAB pages, and has done so for at least two days. It looks as if neither I nor any other participant in WP:DPL wants even to begin facing the task of trying to sort them out. Narky Blert (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-serious comment. The East, Middle, South and West Saxons left their mark upon the English landscape, or at least upon its mythic history. But, you might ask, what happened to the North Saxons? They settled in Nosex; where they failed to thrive. 01:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MarnetteD|Talk 22:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research as confirmed by author's opening edit comment.Glendoremus (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this could include a suburb for every major town on the planet. Blythwood (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Any really interesting ones could go on Wikipedia:Unusual place names, which seems to be a holding space for things nobody wants to delete but which don't exactly belong in the encyclopedia. Meanwhile List of places with numeric names is subject of a merge debate which might be influenced by the outcome of this discussion. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTNAME.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kopech[edit]

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

Non-notable minor-leaguer. Coverage is all of the WP:ROUTINE sort, from either local sources or sites focused on MLB. Fails WP:NBASE. Redirect keeps getting reverted, so here we are. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty clearly passes WP:GNG. These: [1][2][3][4] for example are just from the last few days... Little ridiculous to be nominating this article for deletion.--Yankees10 21:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough sourcing and content on this page to satisfy GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets GNG. The edit warring and deletion nomination without any prior discussion that I can find is problematic. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough coverage exists to substantiate GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Yankees10. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Minor leaguers can be notable. Rlendog (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice towards redirection, but the outcome is definitely not delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Adames[edit]

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

Non-notable minor-leaguer. Coverage is all of the WP:ROUTINE sort, from either local sources or sites focused on MLB. Fails WP:NBASE. Redirect keeps getting reverted, so here we are. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty clearly passes WP:GNG to me at this point. Original editor that unredirected should have put at least some effort into the article, but they weren't wrong in un-redirecting. I cleaned that up a little bit.--Yankees10 21:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players page as the content of the page is minimal and it can easily be maintained at the other page until he makes the majors and becomes notable. Spanneraol (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Length of the article is irrelevant if the article passes GNG. There's a reason why the stub tags exist.--Yankees10 01:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't even out of AA yet. Thats what we have the minor league pages for. Spanneraol (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG doesn't care about what minor league level a player is playing at if the coverage is there. Shouldn't this be known by now?--Yankees10 01:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence he passes GNG.. coverage is routine. Spanneraol (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should have stated that at first then... more valid than your original reasoning.--Yankees10 01:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That actually was the rationale of the entire AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he was discussing Spanneraol's rationale, not your nomination rationale. Lepricavark(talk) 18:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- That's besides the point. Whenever discussing anyone's rationale, it should be in context of the initial nomination. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly shouldn't be deleted. Probably should be kept but I'm not sure. Otherwise redirected, not deleted. A WP:TROUT slap is in order for everyone involved in splitting, reverting, and nominating for deletion without any discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it's close, but the coverage appears to be sufficient to satisfy GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because anyone who played fantasy baseball during those seasons would relate to this article. --Oskinet (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that has nothing to do with an AfD discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(@Onel5969:)... If I am looking at a past season's roster for fantasy sports, I would want a handy reference to obtain that player's info. It is not uncommon for Wikipedians to be fantasy sports enthusiasts. --Oskinet (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political weight[edit]

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

This page is filled with pure original research that does not fulfil the criteria. The original author keeps removing important tags including WP:OR tags. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dubious product of a non-notable website. No independent source to confirm notability.Glendoremus (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry that you think only English material or English-language site can be considered valid source. this is racist. it is clear that political weight is new subject in political science. political weight based on mathematical and statistical method and every one know that mathematics do not need anyone confirmation. if you search in google or other search engine can be seen political weight term use in many article but no one of them explain what the mean of political weight. in this article, noted pw index formula for prove right method of it. and so iikss institute is independent NGO in Iran. it is not enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alirasoli (talk • contribs) 07:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid it is not, because the topic has to meet WP:GNG. A scientific theory, or - in this case - an index - has to show some importance. It is not enough that you have published it, it also has to be recognized by others. In case of such a topic, it means your work has to be cited by others. Can you show who else has cited your work? Non-English sources are fine. PS. You can also ask for this article to be userfied, and in a year or two, when you get some citations, you can try to republish it here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nominator. Blythwood (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this may be an attempt to promote someone's pet project, but lacking significant secondary sources establishing that political weight is a thing, we delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no recognition by independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no significant reference to any sources outside of the IIKSS website, a website which shows no signs (as far as I can see) of being a reliable source in terms of WP:RS. So this topic does not meet WP:GNG. Alephb (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. per nominator's comments. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanieu VII[edit]

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

Unremarkable Dark Ages nobleman. Article does not indicate how he is supposed to be notable. 1 ref. While he is the son of N and the father of N, i think those two individuals have been more notable then this guy. There is no doubt in my mind he exists, I can find mention of him in genealogical websites, and in 1 Google Scholar/Book listing. At least he isn't under governing of BLP. L3X1 (distant write) 20:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cumulatively there are a number of sources in French and Spanish that meet WP:BASIC. You're quite right, the article doesn't discuss the most important aspect of Amanieu VI's rule, which was the surrender of Milhau and its castellany to Prince Edward. The article needs improving, not deletion. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for !voting keep. I'm going to withdraw and mark this as Keep unless you think it should be kept open, which would leave it prey to deletionists.L3X1 (distant write) 04:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fiachra10003 courtesy ping L3X1 (distant write) 04:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

L3X1 Happy to go with your judgment. Sadly, Gascon medieval history is out of fashion or there would be more here. There is no article in French on the guy either. Fiachra10003 (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Fiachra10003Ok, thanks for the info. L3X1 (distant write) 04:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A11 deletion as per astute comments below. – Athaenara ✉ 23:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Easy[edit]

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

Non-notable game. The only external link is to a non-reliable blog post. Searching provides no evidence of any reliable sources. Tassedethe (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under WP:A11. If the nominator will forgive me, I've taken the liberty of adding a Speedy Deletion template myself - there's no need to drag this out. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben–K[edit]

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

Sources are currently all trivial and lack of reliable sources available demonstrates non-notability. Fails WP:ENT (guideline for professional wrestlers).
Quasar G ^{t - c} 19:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 23:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only sources are WP:ROUTINE. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable wrestler.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Headcount is 50-50, but reading the arguments for keeping, none cite any policy-based reasons. Numbers of google hits or passing mentions on dubious web sites are not enough. We need WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film & Television Association Award[edit]

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

This is a page created in December 2015 for an online awards body. I don't think it meets WP:GNG as it lacks significant independent coverage in secondary reliable sources. Cowlibob (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had proposed deletion a couple weeks ago and haven't had reason to change my mind from that rationale: I'm finding very little by way of independent coverage of this award -- only primary sources/press releases and various awards databases. Looks to fail WP:GNG. In hindsight, with only an official link and imdb link and no claim to notability, it might've even qualified for A7. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks good and it passes WP:GNG. - AffeL (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @AffeL: Given we have a couple people who have looked for evidence of passing GNG and could not find it, could you link to the sources which constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rhododendrites. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep - if you Google this, especially Google News, there are a large number of hits, including references to Danica McKellar, Jorja Fox, etc. --Oskinet (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Explicitly not a valid reason to keep (WP:GOOGLEHITS). Also, a brand new account apparently set up to !vote keep in a bunch of AfDs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Oskinet and used on many television and film articles as a reliable award. Also, see [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] mentioning this award. - Brojam (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mentions" are explicitly what don't show notability. We need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oscar_Peterson_discography. The relist comment asked the question, Redirect or delete, and unfortunately, I still don't see a clear consensus either way. But, giving the nod to redirect per WP:ATD. In any case, clear consensus to not leave this as a stand-alone article. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Peterson Plays Jazz Standards[edit]

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

recordings specifies, "significant coverage in reliable sources". This article has only one source (Allmusic). Also, that section specifies, "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." Eddie Blick (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This appears to be one of 4 selected Peterson albums in a 1996 edition of Joachim-Ernst Berendt's "The Jazz Book". [14] AllyD (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a compilation album. Even though it appears to be an official one (from one of OP's labels), there must be dozens by now. Unless there's something that makes this one stand out, I see little reason to keep the article. EddieHugh (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oscar_Peterson_discography where it is listed. The AllMusic "review" is a single sentence. I did find what looks like a full paragraph here. Otherwise mostly is shows up as a listed album with little or no comment. Still not enough to justify a separate article IMO. Gab4gab (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't redirect, unless a separate section in the discog is made for compilations: deleting the article would mean cutting it from the discog, as it shouldn't be where it currently is in that. EddieHugh (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not my area of expertise. I'm fine with not redirecting if it doesn't belong. Gab4gab (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oscar_Peterson_discography. A separate section can be made in the list for compilations. This album should have already been on his discography list anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea how many OP compilation albums there might be? The number will be very high and growing all the time. Creating a list of them is pointless, as almost none will be notable and no one will be interested. Or are you volunteering to create this new section? If not, and no one else is, then don't redirect. EddieHugh (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dick Masterson[edit]

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

The result was Delete. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. All the sources supplied are affiliated. I found little other than that besides mention in a bunch of forum discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication that he is notable, which is shown by being covered by independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - revert to stub entry and develop. This is a well-known comedian and internet personality who meets Wikipedia:Notability, but unfortunately the recent edits have not been encyclopedic at best (which I have reverted). This issue should have first been brought up on the talk page of the article rather than proceeding with a hasty deletion. Otherwise, this does not give other Wikipedians enough time to address the Multiple Issues tag placed on the page. --UnionFront (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is the proper way to go. This discussion has been running for nine days--there was plenty of time to add secondary sources (you don't offer any), but instead all nothing was added but fluff and a bunch of copied content from Wikia. Oshwah, is it not time to close this? Dr Aaij (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that he is notable, or covered by any independent or recent & noteworthy sources.Babsbodette (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence found of sufficient coverage for Masterson, Herrera, or for either podcast (a bit surprisingly in the case of TBPITU), even as an NPOINTS keep. Doesn't appear to meet NAUTHOR despite book published by a major publisher. https://www.patreon.com/thedickshow indicates that he has a core fan base, though. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of notability. Not every author/podcaster is notable by our standards. His book was published nine years ago, and there isn't a single decent review that I can find in nine pages of Google searches ("Men Are Better Than Women" masterson); all I can find is that he was called a chauvinist in a comment on an article in the Telegraph, in 2011. So, no. Dr Aaij (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in Thailand[edit]

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

No content apart from a WP:CRYSTALBALL listing of the presumed incumbent head of state and head of government. Paul_012 (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notable content (yet) for the article. WP:CRYSTALBALL applies. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Beard[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Film and television credits lack a strong sense of notability, with many of the films/shows not having their own WP pages. Based on the sources provided and available, I don't think he passes WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION What is the preferred method/venue for responding to this? Should I continue editing this page or stark a talk page? How many notable works must an actor appear in before they are considered notable? I could find no set criteria. Netweave (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

continue editing the article if you can find information of substance, and also let this discussion know about what you're able to find/add. PK T(alk) 22:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion test for an actor is not a raw count of how many films he has or hasn't appeared in — one film can be enough if the person gets an Oscar or BAFTA nomination for their performance, and 100 films can be not enough if those were all bit part roles that didn't garner any reliable source coverage about those performances. Actors are included or excluded on the basis of how well the article can or can't be referenced, not how many roles they have or haven't had. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless Scumbag (film) or future credits become noteworthy. Most of this chap's work has been short films, and there is a lack of mention in Wikipedia:Reliable sources in the article as of today. PK T(alk) 22:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when an article that actually meets our inclusion standards can be written, but nothing here exempts him from having to be the subject of more reliable source coverage about his acting than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above reasons. This Beard is too short (of notable credits). It needs to grow out a lot more. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slingback[edit]

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

No refs. No non-advertisement coverage online. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"About 11,100,000 results (0.62 seconds)" 11 million adverts would suggest some level of interest in these items, especially when Boxer shorts only gets 8.3 million. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[15],[16],[17],[18]'[19], Some examples in liturature. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer news then:[20]'[21],[22],[23],[24]'[25]. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Please read WP:NEXIST - this nomination is a surprising slip-up from an experienced editor. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. That said, the nominator properly notes the total absence of references. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you're incorrect here. "No refs" definitely isn't a reason to nominate an article for deletion. Per WP:NEXIST, it's the sources that can be found through carrying out a WP:BEFORE search that matter. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - A staple style of shoe, widely worn and published in multiple sources. This should never have been nominated for deletion based on even the most cursory WP:BEFORE check. I would note that Fiachra is CORRECT to say that there is an absence of resources, especially as she wasn't saying it was a reason for nomination, just that it was something that needed pointing out. Mabalu (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Доц. Николай Ив. Николов (художник)[edit]

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

Wrong Place KD Studio (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Доц. Николай Ив. Николов (художник)[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 March 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11 and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This should be used as the definition of a business listing. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NewVenture Games[edit]

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

Fails CORP. 0 Gnews hits. Also quite PROMO and NOTCATALOG John from Idegon (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaraj Poroor[edit]

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

Dearth of sources.Non-notable. Winged Blades^Godric 14:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 14:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 14:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 14:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete No evidence that the subject meets WP:PROF. The highest cited paper by the subject was published in 2008 and received a total of 6 citations according to Google Scholar. More evidence is required for notability. — Stringy Acid (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only potential claim of notability in the article is his CS research publications, but they have so few citations in Google Scholar (in a high-citation area) that they clearly do not pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Kirk[edit]

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

Delete: I can't find any reliable third party sources for this person, except several mentions of his appointment as CEO of one insurance group in South Africa, a position he appears to have held for just 2 years. Fails WP:BIO. ww2censor (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wiki is riddled with false "notables". Sarah777 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Philip Church (Norwalk, Connecticut)[edit]

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

no indication of notability for this building. Winning a local award is not enough. Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport may be a reasonable alternative to deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was a multiple-article AFD for this article and other church articles which led to "Keep" or "no consensus"(?) outcome previously: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut). I guess the closer failed to post notice of the AFD at the Talk page of the affected articles. --do ncr am 19:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a,~~Redirect~~ to parent parish Saint Mary Church (Norwalk, Connecticut). The architect may be notable enough to support an article. On this parish, however, I am finding only routine news stories.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect to St. Mary, Norwalk the parish was taken from the territory of St. Mary, Norwalk, but there is no current link and a redirect would be misleading.--Jahaza (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find a few articles on newspapers.com on the building, two from right after it opened and a third noting the award.[26], [27], and [28]. I'm not convinced either way, however. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to think that a redirect to Saint Mary Church (Norwalk, Connecticut) is a reasonable resolution. Note that St. Mary, Norwalk bills itself as "The Mother Church of Norwalk, Connecticut," an already mentions St. Philip on its talk page. It is possible that this page could be sourced up to standard, in addition to the architecture, and coverage of chartitible efforts in local - but reliable, secondary - sources over the course of decades, there is a good deal of coverage related to a parishoner who enjoyed a moment in the national spotlight when his 1040's era discharge form the U.S. military for being gay, was replaced with an honourable discharge.[29] He was in design and did some stuff for big retailers that might make him able to have a page of his own, but he took charge of the church's decorative elements (both creatively and as a conservator, apparantly) So, as I say,someone could expand this page, but deleting seems to violate WP:PRESERVE and St. Mary's seems like the best merge destination. Alternatively, we could leave as is and tag REIMPROVE with a tip on talk page to check this AFD for leads on sourices.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on second thought. This building [30] rocks, and was a significant statement in its day. Keep and pray for an editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The architecture is Mid-century modern architecture according to that link (although not mentioned in the article yet), and yes the building is cool. I commented above and have been wondering which way to go, but I also think this topic has significance and I expect there are sources about its construction and about the architecture award mentioned in the article for the interested person to develop it. --do ncr am 19:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This would clearly be NN (like most local churches), unless its architectural merit (and the awards won) make it notable. I am unable to judge whether that exception is sufficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There seems to be a consensus in favor of keeping, and I think that seems ok. If no one else gets to it first, I'll try to add the material I found from newspapers.com this evening or early next week. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW. The General Notability Guideline is met, as is WP:GEOLAND. @World556:, please read through WP:NEXIST before your next nomination. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muria, Bihar[edit]

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

Because that is insufficient text and not any reliable sources then how to readers know that the this place is in real or this is disputes. (World556 (☎) 11:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep:The article passes WP:GEO have added sources to the page [31] [32] will add more soon.FITINDIA (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surendar Shanmugam[edit]

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

No significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in details to support WP:GNG and actor in one notable film fails to pass WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search found nothing but LinkedIn and other unreliable sources. The non-IMDb source in the article is not sufficient for notability as notability is not inherited. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet GNG yet. Arunram (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. Tdslk (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of 100-run partnerships by Sri Lankan batsman in Test cricket[edit]

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

List cruft collection of stats. At least seven years out of date, unreferenced and no real-world notabilty. Several similar lists like this were deleted in the last 6 months or so, with this one not being spotted until today. I've not found any similar lists for the other Test nations, and this stat is a pretty common occurrence. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Good catch Lugnuts. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk)
Delete - total lack of notability for starters. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless listcruft. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Magill[edit]

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

We have one piece written by the individual herself, and one short piece saying she died. Is this good enough to prove the notability of someone only known as a blogger? Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete having 50,000 facebook followers is not a criterion for notability. do her lifetime achievements warrant WP:BIO? no. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I wouldn't wish her illness on anybody or her situation on anyone's family, but we're not a memorial site. It would be nice if User:LibStar could show a little class in their comments seeing as we're speaking in public about a recently deceased person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Star Codex[edit]

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

Fails the General Notability Guideline because all sources located through a WP:BEFORE search are blogs or passing mentions. There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as required by the GNG, and let me pre-empt comments by saying that blogs are user-generated content and are therefore not considered reliable sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Delete: Fails GNG and NWEB after checking notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 11:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No in-depth coverage; provided references consist of bare passing mentions. —Keφr 13:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous comments in this deletion discussion were written before I added a substantial new, referenced subsection to the article. Each of the mentions of the Slate Star Codex blog in the reliable sources may be relatively short – but together, they add up to enough material to sufficiently reliably source the current version of the article as of now. I would implore my fellow Wikipedia editors to employ their common sense here. Common sense suggests that if an otherwise roughly valid Wikipedia article can be written on a topic and reliably sourced, the topic satisfies one of the reasons for instituting the GNG in the first place – to exclude articles which could never be non-trivial if they were reliably sourced with currently-available sources, no matter how much they were improved. Also, the GNG does not actually say that coverage should be "in-depth", or should not be "passing mentions". It requires significant coverage, and says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So for the avoidance of doubt, it is OK, from the point of view of the GNG, that none of the independent sources cited have the SSC blog as their "main topic". What they do contain, collectively, is enough facts about the blog that are worthwhile to include in a Wikipedia article, to make it a non-trivial article. I think the current version of the article, as linked above, with over 700 words excluding references, counts as non-trivial. The GNG also explains: '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.' Again, I think the intent of the guideline matters here, and I think the article is currently reasonably free of original research, which also being detailed, so that criterion seems to be satisfied sufficiently to make an article, which is what matters. --greenrd (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you've misinterpreted the GNG here. The term significant coverage in reliable, independent sources cannot be selectively cherry-picked. Sources must be found that contain significant coverage, and those sources must be both reliable and independent. All these conditions need to apply at once - and no, a whole bunch of passing mentions cannot possibly add up to "significant coverage". Exemplo347 (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say "a whole bunch of passing mentions cannot possibly add up to "significant coverage"" - but why not? What do you base this belief on?--greenrd (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, you can't cherry-pick. "Significant coverage" is a straightforward term, defined in the GNG as "more than a trivial mention." Trivial mentions don't suddenly morph into "significant coverage" just because there's a lot of them. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess I should have spoken in a more lawyerly way. To be more precise, my full argument on this matter is actually (a) the letter of the GNG is met, the coverage of SSC in the reliable sources - such as this one - is mostly not trivial - but (b) I have a fallback argument if you don't agree with (a), which is that even if you don't think the coverage is non-trivial, their cumulative effect is non-trivial.--greenrd (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article you have referenced does not talk about the blog itself, rather it talks about a blog entry - the difference may seem ridiculously picky but Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that Notability cannot be inherited. As to the cumulative effect of lots of trivial articles somehow adding up to something non-trivial, I'm not sure how many times I need to keep repeating myself. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But what is a blog but a collection of blog entries, an optional sidebar of links, and a usually-trivial About page? Come on! By your logic, no number of notable events in a person's life would make a biographical article about them pass the GNG, because the notability of the events that they notably participated in would not "transfer" to the person themselves! But that's ridiculous! The reality is that if a person is non-trivially covered participating in an event in reliable independent sources, it contributes towards that person's notability with respect to the GNG, and in the same way, if a blog post is non-trivially covered in reliable independent sources that explicitly mention the name of the blog or the blogger, I would argue, it contributes towards the notability of the blog with respect to the GNG. The non-inheritance of notability principle is meant to prevent things like a son inheriting his father's notability, or a restaurant inheriting its new proprietor's notability. --greenrd (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the GNG is straightforward. If you want to change it, then you'll need to head over to the appropriate forum and get it changed. Until then, articles have to meet its requirements. If this blog had coverage that meets the GNG I would have found it and !voted accordingly. I didn't find any - now let's not WP:BLUDGEON this point over & over, it's not going to change my mind because I've based my nomination on Wikipedia's policies, not my personal opinion. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347:Wait, I'm not following this. I think the Weekly Standard reference is insufficient for a WP article, but I've never seen the blog vs. blog entry notability distinction before. A blog is its blog entries. That's not inheritance as far as I can tell. Can you give an example of another AfD discussion where this distinction or a very similar one was drawn? Utsill (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Utsill:As far as I can tell, they're saying that it's not enough for a news article to merely talk about a particular article on a blog - it has to talk about the blog as a whole. Of course, by this standard about half of List of blogs should be deleted... [edit] It seems obvious to me that notability must transfer along the same lines as merging, or merging is fundamentally broken as a tool. The notability of a set of articles should never go down as a result of a merge. It is hence absurd for a blog that has multiple notable articles to not be itself notable. As far as I can see, the Wikipedia:Notability (web) rule merely concerns association, not composition. For instance, "Similarly, a website may be notable, but the owners or authors do not "inherit" notability due to the web content they wrote" seems to imply by omission that the website itself does inherit notability from the content on it. @Exemplo347: please opine? 2003:D4:FBC8:8047:900:5EE1:3907:49F6 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)— 2003:d4:fbc8:8047:900:5ee1:3907:49f6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(I'm 49F6.) I've posed the question on VNN.FeepingCreature (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)— FeepingCreature (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yeah, that all seems roughly correct to me, though note as per my vote below, that I don't think SSC meets notability criteria even if we assume significant coverage of blog posts is significant coverage of the blog itself. I do wish @Exemplo347: would explain his (weird) view here, ideally with evidence from elsewhere on WP. Utsill (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG taion (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete is well discussed in the blogosphere, but WP is not part of the blogosphere. Not now, anyway. If it were, this would pass GNG. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet basic notability threshold.Glendoremus (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a blog with a handful of links from other blogs. Fails GNG Jsilter (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But Slate Star Codex was referenced in the print edition of Reason magazine, which is not a blog, and in newspapers in a syndicated column by Bloomberg View columnist Noah Smith - also not blogs.--greenrd (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions are not significant coverage. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? If we can write a substantial, well-referenced article based entirely on putting together material from what you characterise as mere mentions, what's the problem? And, if so, are we now to delete all articles in Wikipedia that are based entirely on material from mere mentions - including other articles about websites and biographical articles? Be very careful what you wish for, would be my advice. You might find that the scope of this exacting interpretation of what is, after all, a Guideline, catches more than you would like.--greenrd (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What's with the deletionism? It's not like Wikipedia will run out of space. SCC is a fairly prominent blog whose content is mentioned in many places. Philosopher paper. Interdisciplinary paper. Ethics paper. ESP discussion book. Paul Bloom's Empathy book, which received widespread attention, cites it too. And so on. Deleet (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are passing mentions. Also, I'd remind you to assume good faith - it's not "deletionism" to request the removal of articles that don't meet the GNG, every editor should be working to improve Wikipedia. This isn't a repository for articles on non-notable subjects. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the entire notability is dependent upon one posting, not of particular importance . That's not enough. DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do worry people are falling into deletionism/dogpiling here, but my best search for multiple independent RS's covering SSC in significant coverage is nonetheless coming up short. I think the Weekly Standard and Vox references come close, but they're opinion pieces and few in number. Utsill (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does the GNG exclude opinion pieces as applicable reliable sources for notability purposes. You might believe that it should, but in point of fact, it doesn't. On the contrary, it references the reliable sources guideline which is written in terms of "all majority and significant minority views", making it clear that the notion of a reliable source is supposed to include publications that publish "views", i.e. opinions. As we can all no doubt acknowledge, opinion pieces often state true facts within them.--greenrd (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking mostly about: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." from WP:NEWSORG. I am not suggesting any changes to WP:GNG, and I don't think the antagonistic tone of your comment is helpful. Utsill (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you really wanted, we could of course replace statements like "Scott Alexander has written blog posts about scientific methodology" in the article with "A Vox writer has claimed that Scott Alexander has written blog posts about scientific methodology", but that would be unnecessary and silly. I don't see the relevance of classifying certain sources as "opinion pieces" per se to the article's notability, or to this deletion discussion. To show that a source was unreliable, you would have to do more than cast vague aspersions such as "it's an opinion piece".--greenrd (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of WP policy is that the opinionated nature of the articles does count against them being RS's. You seem to disagree with the policy, not the interpretation. I do think this policy is a good one, because for example opinion pieces tend to mix around opinions with facts in ways that are difficult to discern. It's also easier to get coverage from an opinion piece or editorial, so that may lower the over GNG standards and have associated downsides. Utsill (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that any contentious claim in the article could be rewritten using in-text attribution, thus rendering the source's alleged unreliability irrelevant from a notability point of view, and that this would not be necessary for all the claims in the article, some of which are just of the form "there are Slate Star Codex posts about topic X" and so are not controversial. Again, I'm applying common sense here, rather than the letter of the policy.--greenrd (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Rendering the source's alleged unreliability irrelevant from a notability point of view," but I don't think in-text attribution would do that. Notability is not measured by the content or wording of an article, but rather by the nature of the sources. I think WP Notability is a distinct concept from any features of the WP article itself. For example, we wouldn't want a renegade editor to change the wording of the article in a way that made it so non-notable that the article should then be deleted. And if you agree with me here, but then think opinionated sources in themselves do more to establish notability than I credit them for, then I think we just circle back to our earlier discussion. Utsill (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The blog is actually cited by reference 2 and two paragraphs are given explaining and responding to his view. For a blog to be mentioned in a peer reviewed academic paper as a notable opinion worthy of elucidation/rebuttal counts as a good point in my view. K.Bog 20:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a world of difference between a "peer reviewed academic paper" and an essay that's part of a College publication. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a peer reviewed journal published by a college. That doesn't make it any worse than other academic journals, as far as I know. K.Bog 22:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't peer reviewed at all, that's what you're not getting. It's a College publication. Nowhere in the link you've given, or on the site for the publication, does it say it's been peer reviewed. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can see from the site that the papers are accepted or rejected by editors: [33] [34] [35]. The general editor, Ramona Ilea, is a faculty of philosophy [36]. The style and format of the publication are very similar to how peer-reviewed journals usually are. In my experience, journals (at least in philosophy) don't specifically advertise further details; there certainly isn't any reason to suppose that it wasn't peer-reviewed. K.Bog 23:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is just silly. If it was peer-reviewed, it would say so. It doesn't, so let's just leave it there. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think journals often specifically say that they are peer reviewed. I've opened an RFC on the WikiProject Philosophy noticeboard. K.Bog 23:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, a Reddit user here claimed that they were the author and referred to the 'revise and review stage' for this paper. K.Bog 23:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, an RfC discussion will not have any effect on this AfD discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it wouldn't. K.Bog 00:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Request for Comment discussions can go on for weeks - and the one you've started does not address any element of my deletion rationale. To be quite frank with you, if you've started it as a delaying tactic then that's not exactly a good faith thing to be doing. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it does address the rebuttal you made to my statement (which disproved the claim you made earlier that Kissel's paper constituted a "passing mention"). This is also a very simple matter which anyone with background in philosophy can clear up. And clearly I couldn't have foreseen that you would assert that Essays in Philosophy isn't peer reviewed when I decided to comment. The reason I didn't comment earlier is that I wasn't yet sure that this article ought to be preserved. K.Bog 00:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a background in Philosophy to tell the difference between a peer-reviewed journal and a college publication. I must ask you not to forum-shop or canvas for comments - it's disruptive behaviour. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"College publication" usually refers to magazines and other collections of student work. The paper here was clearly a collection of reviewed academic papers submitted by philosophy professionals and graduate students in multiple countries. It looks like the only topic of dispute here is whether the papers were reviewed by peers or by less authoritative individuals. Also, I already responded to your accusations of forum-shopping and canvassing in the WikiProject Philosophy noticeboard where you followed my link in an attempt to tell WikiProject Philosophy users that they shouldn't comment in your AFD. K.Bog 00:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note There's no reason that a dispute about college journals should derail this discussion so I'm leaving it there. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Fails to pass WP:GNG.Winged Blades^Godric 13:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generation ucan[edit]

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

COI user has created page, despite Draft:Generation_UCAN being rejected. Promotional tone. Doubtable notability. See AfC for more info. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Highly promotional, notability not established. Probably could qualify for WP:CSD#G11. Many of the references are non-independent - the fact that at least 7 of the references link directly to shopping pages at generationucan.com is indicative of the motivation for this article's creation. Most of the remaining references in the article are not about the company or its products; they are about individual ingredients in the products. Deli nk (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly referenced non neutral promotional content by a paid editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) J 947 03:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem[edit]

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

Lack of notability TheDracologist (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article is kept, the tone needs to be more encyclopedic. The first sentence currently refers to "Robert Stearns who is the loving and caring father of Isaac Stearns (An aspiring musician with incredible talent and ambition)". It is not Wikipedia's role to evaluate the lovingness and caringness, nor the talent and ambition, of these people, which characteristics are not even relevant to the event that this article is about. (These comments weren't always in the article, so perhaps a reversion to an earlier version without such comments would help.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Metropolitan90, for catching this. Vandalism is now reverted to the original encyclopedic tone. -- IsaacSt (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an event receiving notable ongoing coverage for many years - from 1993 (in article) to 2015 [37] and 2017 [38] from a very quick google search. The article itself perhaps needs to be balanced fixed in terms of tone, but the event definitely meets GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Copious sourcing available. Shame on Nom for failing to do WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is yet another WP:DISRUPTive AfD with a cursory justificaiton and no evidence ow WP:BEFORE by new editor TheDracologist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search and the references on the page clearly show WP:GNG has been met. - Galatz ^Talk 18:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources. No valid reason to delete.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Withdraw?) I was mistaken in nominating this. TheDracologist (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) J 947 03:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Apostolic Congress on Mercy[edit]

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

Does not appear to have significant coverage. I suggest we delete and redirect to Divine Mercy. TheDracologist (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This newish, international Roman Catholic onference gets significant news coverage [39] in the Phillippines, one of the world's largest Catholic nations.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is yet another WP:DISRUPTive AfD by new editor TheDracologist, whose absured redirect suggestion is either POINTY or ignorant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there certainly seem to be plenty of reliable sources shown in the link by EM Gregory which can be added to the article and used to expand it Atlantic306 (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Withdraw?) I was mistaken in nominating this. Sorry for wasting your time. TheDracologist (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2040 Election USA[edit]

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

Should be deleted as a very obvious violation of WP:FUTURE. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Real-time computing. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real-time control[edit]

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

This page is empty of content. "Popular" -- with whom? "A certain class" -- what class? "For effective digital control..." is dubious, and the last sentence makes no sense without context. Those three short sentences are the whole article.

If "real time control" means anything (besides the "Real-time Control System", which is a specific thing produced by NIST that has its own substantial Wikipedia page), it can only mean "control carried out in real time". But all control systems work in "real time". The humble room thermostat keeps the room temperature constant "in real time", the quoted phrase adding nothing to the sentence. A Google search of "real time control" does not turn up anything referring to a generic sense of the phrase. "Real time" means something in relation to software: software that must keep up with some external process, as opposed to software that can take however long it takes to produce its result. But a controller must keep up with the system it is controlling; all control systems are real time.

In short, there is nothing for this article to be about. The article has had no substantial revision since it was created in 2004.

RichardKennaway (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Control theory. Real time control is now going to be digital, but it was once analog. It's a sensible redirect but it adds nothing to the existing article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:TNT. "Real-time control" does not mean the same scope as control theory, although that's strongly implied by the current content. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: would a redirect to Real-time computing ~~be more relevant?~~

Note to RichardKennaway: "real time" is used both strictly and loosely in computing; the strict definition is relevant to control systems and basically means guaranteed response time. There are plenty of control systems, such as the thermostat you mentioned, that don't (need to) meet this criterion. --pmj (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect based on general approval from MadScientistX11. --pmj (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Or redirect to Real-time computing. But I would vote for just delete. As far as I can tell this is really about a certain type of digital controller and so could be an additional section in the article Digital control. But there is essentially nothing but a definition in the article now and this is not Wiktionary. I also agree that Real time control is not the same as control theory (any more than Real-time computing is the same as computing). --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Real-time computing, per above. Deletion is also an option, but WP:CHEAP... — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Momoka Nishina[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. No real assertion of notablity. The article is sited to online directories, industry publicity materials, or otherwise unsuitable sources. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Davey2010. Montanabw^(talk) 02:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable pornographic film actresses.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis. A BLP without independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lean Bear. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avonaco[edit]

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

Forwarding from a PROD because I feel like this deserves a more rigorous examination to determine if the tribe exists, and if so, what should be done with the article. PROD concern was: "non notable first name. not a separate tribe or branch of a tribe that I can tell." Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the original PRODer. I searched Google and Google Books and found no indication that "Avonaco" was, as appears to be claimed, a Cheyenne tribe. It turns up on a bunch of baby name sites as a Cheyenne first name, but no reliable sources indicate it's the first name of anyone notable that might merit a disambig page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lean Bear. Alternative spelling of Awoninahku (signatory of the Treaty of Fort Wise) per a few sources such as this ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm on board for this redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be on board as well. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom and close the discussion then? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After the Third Bell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM: I can't see If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject expect this and this which looks like a interview session with the director and a copy of each other. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like the Asian Age source was a review. It looks like with that and the other sources, it could just squeak by NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: I believe in your judgment but I'm a bit uncomfortable using Deccan Herald sources because of the author's linkedin profile. Both sources were published by the same author couple of months before the release of the film which trigging toward the promotional use and I can't see any source published post release except Asian Age you mentioned above. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the only encyclopedically relevant prose in the article is "The Asian Age reviewed the movie, praising its two leads while also stating that it needed a better supporting cast." The rest is catalog-like listing of cast, release, etc. No value to the project at this time. This info can be found in the IMDB and an encyclopedia article is not necessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia. A narrow/literal reading of the discussion would indicate deleting, but the redirect resets things back to how they were after the previous AfD, which seems like the right thing to do. I'm going to stop short of protecting the page, but @BugMenn: you are cautioned to not make edits contrary to previously developed consensus without gaining support via the appropriate talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Mount Druitt[edit]

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

Was redirected as a result of a prior AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Mount Druitt. Editor continues to ignore the consensus of that prior discussion. Please delete and salt. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should have been the outcome during the previous AFD discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might be eligible for a G4 Speedy (recreation of deleted article), but the editor (User:BugMenn) did add the "Incidents" section, so it's a bigger article. So IMO it's OK to reconsider it. One problem is, the "Incidents" section is just a grab-bag of police reports -- it's not like any encyclopedia-worthy stuff happened there. The editor has recreated the the deleted article, and just now deleted the AfD notice from the top of the article, which is not the kind of behavior we want to see -- or reward. I don't think User:BugMenn is promoting the entity. If he was he wouldn't have written the "Incidents" section. He just likes shopping mall articles. If anything, the article as it stands now kind of deprecates the mall, what with all the police-blotter info and all.

I don't care about shopping malls, but the existence of the article doesn't bother me. The previous AfD did have a couple of Keep votes, from editors pointing out that it would leave {{Westfield Australia}} with a single red link (or black link anyway, if the template is edited) and that seems unwarranted and would look a bit odd. Here's the template:

This makes sense. If editors want to document the activities of Westfield Australia (an apparently notable entitity) to this level of detail, I don't see how that's harmful. If we don't want this, then maybe we should look at all the articles in {{Westfield Australia}} and nominate then en masse, rather than just picking off one?

On the other hand, the article does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Even the new material about the big brawl just mentions the mall in passing. So a delete vote on that basis would be defensible. Herostratus (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt fails WP:GNG. The incidents section is now bigger than the rest of the article. So WP:UNDUE. But these incidents don't even establish notability of the centre. The editor that has tried to defy consensus also has preciously used socks in AfD discussions. LibStar (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment it is concerning that the editor in question didn't get his way Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Westfield_Mount_Druitt. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after thinking it over, and looking at the other links in {{Westfield Australia}}. It seems illogical to focus on one link in {{Westfield Australia}} and say "let's delete just that one", because all the articles are basically similar. If someone wants to bring up all the articles {{Westfield Australia}} for consideration for deletion, that'd be different. But that'd be heavier lifting, and I'd probably oppose that.

Sure, the creator of the article is not acting great, but we don't delete otherwise acceptable articles to punish editors (except in the case of banned editors), that would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Herostratus (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the merits of the article in this AFD and its suitability to be included in Wikipedia. AFDs are not a discussion related to the behaviour of the creator. Ajf773 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know; it was user LibStar who brought it up. Herostratus (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you've said previously that this article does not seem to meet WP:GNG yet now you say keep. Secondly you've used an WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second G in GNG stands for "Guideline". It doesn't meet the GNG and that's a data point; it's not the end of the discussion. Let me turn the question around. The proposition is this: "There are 35 links in {{Westfield Australia}}. Many of them [maybe all, I didn't check them all] are to articles substantially similar to this one. Yet this one and only this one should be singled out to be deleted, because ___________." Well, what goes in the blank?

What we need here is a bundled deletion nomination for all the articles in {{Westfield Australia}} (unless there are a few that, for some reason should be excluded -- can't imagine what it would be, a mall is a mall, but maybe). WP:MULTIAFD gives step-by-step instructions on how to do this. Let's do that, and fine. You probably won't get my vote, but that's just me, and maybe you'll be able to clear out all 35 or so articles at once. Until then, it makes no sense to make a scattershot approach to this group of articles. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

most of the larger Westfields are notable but many of the smaller aren't. You still are using a flawed WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. There is absolutely no need for multiple nominations and this cannot be used to argue a keep case. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the WP:ALLORNOTHING. I read WP:ALLORNOTHING and I understand [[WP:ALLORNOTHING, I just don't agree with it. It's an essay, just somebody's opinion, and IMO it's pretty silly because it says "Keep, because if you delete this you will have to delete other articles in this class [if you're going to be logical and consistent]" is a bad argument, when actually it's a very reasonable argument, if deleting the other articles in the class doesn't look like a good idea. What WP:ALLORNOTHING says, in essence, is "If you have a class of very similar articles, deleting some of them and keeping others, at random, is a good way to make an encyclopedia". And that's silly.

So what's your cutoff? Westfield Mount Druitt is 60,088 square meters with 240 stores. Westfield Belconnen is 94,718 square meters with 287 stores. Is Westfield Belconnen "in" and Westfield Mount Druitt "out", then? Westfield Woden is 62,000 square meters and 260 stores. Does that extra 1,912 square feet and 20 stores seal the deal for Westfield Woden? A lot of these malls are larger, but a lot of them are in the 60,000+ square meter range. Westfield Mount Druitt is in that smaller group.

So, I mean, I'm asking. Maybe there should be a 70,000 square meter cutoff, or something. I note Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers) exists (it didn't pass though). I also see there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers, which just shows that there are Wikipedians who are interested in this subject and willing to work on it. I'd leave 'em alone and let 'em'; they're not going after your articles. Herostratus (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft or Keep I know I've done something bad, but I will work on the article when on the draft AFC and submit when it meets th WP:GNG standard. Same thing happened with the Marrickville Metro article which was deleted in December. BugMenn (talk) 14:40 5 March 2017 (UTC)

you need to accept outcomes of deletion discussions not try to circumvent processes and recreate deleted articles without consensus. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments in previous AfD discussion and per LibStar above.Charles (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 02:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or "Redirect" is okay too), obviously, to List of Westfield shopping centres in Australia. I say "obviously" because the list-article exists and can easily be expanded with some content on this mall and all others. Redirect or merge are good alternatives to outright deletion, in part because they leave behind the edit history allowing for re-establishment of the article if/when there is _substantial_ new content available. Just because the list-article and the navigation template exist and have barely any content besides the bare list, doesn't mean that content should not be developed at the list article. At this point there is not substantial content in this article (of the "incidents" only the first one possibly merits any mention at all), and if this mall is covered in the list-article there would be no need to split it out to a separate article. Any editor interested in reconsidering the other mall articles can and should edit at the main list-article first, making a table there probably, and proceed to implement mergers/redirects as they see fit and/or with merger proposals posted at the corresponding articles. The navigation template can/should be updated to show a blacklink (i.e. no bluelink, no redlink) for the Westfield Mount Druitt mall and any others merged to the main article. (I think that is mildly better than showing a bluelink which suggests to the reader that there will be a separate article about it, but which brings the reader to a row in the list-article.)

I think this is a sensible compromise in this case, and that the option to merge to a list-article is too often overlooked in general at AFD. :) --do ncr am 19:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see this recommendation, except with "Redirect" rather than "Merge", was the outcome of the previous AFD. Perhaps the problem then was that nothing was merged, i.e. the entire content was effectively deleted by the redirect, and there was no way forward apparent to the contributor(s). What is needed is for a real merger to be done, with the target list-article at least partially transformed into a real list-article with content and inline citations to sources, from its current state (effectively a navigation template, merely listing malls while providing no content, sourced or unsourced, about them). One could start by developing a table row or two about some of the most notable malls, drawing on their articles. Then make a smaller row about this mall which seems not to be individually notable but which can exist as a list-item (for which no absolute law on notability applies; list-item notability can be defined by local consensus at any list-article). The last AFD outcome and/or its implementation was too harsh in effect. --do ncr am 22:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J 947 03:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boys Noize[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, fails notability for music, lots of peacock words - TheMagnificentist 11:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MUSICBIO criteria #1 is met by these three sources: all music bio, The Guardian article and CMJ New Music Monthly. Gab4gab (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Comment User User:Imalawyer has been blocked as a sock. Jacona (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This article just passes WP:N. However, it does need to be rewritten because of the "peacock words." Imalawyer (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the above user User:Imalawyer has been confirmed as a Sock puppet of User:Sdc3000.Jacona (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable musician. In addition to meeting criteria 1, also meets criteria 2. Not necessarily well known in the English-speaking world.Synchronism (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His album Power made #24 on the Belgian Album Chart source. The coverage he's received is also substantial. We'd be endorsing a cultural bias to remove this, it says a lot that he's got articles on so many other Wikipedia languages. KaisaL (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Data Collective[edit]

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

This article is paid advertorial. The sources look very much like press releases published as news, i.e. churnalism. The organisation does not seem to pass the notability bar, which is presumably why the article was paid for rather than created by a volunteer. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found a few possible sources online. Could they be used to create a less crappyy stub? Bearian (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sources linked above are all PR-driven, and insufficient to build an NPOV article. Purely WP:PROMO at this point (and in foreseeable future), so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saya Misaki[edit]

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

A biography that lacks reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. The article is cited to blogs, ecommerce web sites, directories, and other unsuitable sources.

The first AfD closed as "keep" in 2007 based on the argument that "35 DVDs at mainstream Amazon.com clearly indicate notability" and the overall notability of the genre, both of which are odd criteria to use. Ten years on, I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The number of DVDs that this person appeared in does not show that her work rises to the level of notability. She does not pass any applicable notability standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous AFD where editors provided in-depth coverage and policies. </sarcasm> (Obviously Delete per PORNBIO & GNG.) –Davey2010^Talk 17:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: would you mind unbolding the "keep" vote and bolding the "delete" one? Otherwise, if a closer is looking at AfD tool, they may interpret that there's ambiguity. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –Davey2010^Talk 15:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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