Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 25

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Northamerica1000 (talk | contribs) at 04:13, 4 March 2017 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boys Noize). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 24 February 26 February >

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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assia Abdullah

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

A non-notable sports commentator. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Florescu

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

Two reasons to delete. One, the subject hasn't really done anything notable. I mean, sure, he's had an interesting career, but at a fairly inconspicuous level in whatever he's dabbled in - politics, business, journalism and television; nothing stands out. Two, the sources don't back up a claim of notability, as defined by WP:BASIC. I may be missing something among the forest of cruft, which really isn't helpful to his case, but things like this or this or this or this do nothing to advance the idea he may be notable. (Evidently because they aren't independent.) Same goes for things like this (passing mention) or this (editorial written by the subject). As for the royal decoration: one, of course the Romanian royal family is going to decorate someone who makes a glowing documentary about one of them; two, Romania hasn't been a monarchy since 1947, so it's a fairly meaningless private honor.

Anyway, to sum up, I'm simply not seeing significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. - Biruitorul Talk 00:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Delete. My gut feeling from reading the article is that this is a puff piece (probably by a paid publicist) about a non-notable person. There's a carpet-bomb of references. I spot-checked two of them from the NY TImes:
    • CAMPAIGN-TECHNIQUE EXPERTS SEE DIFFICULTIES FOR CONSENSUS. Passing quote from the Florescu, in the 5th paragraph, in an article on another topic.
    • The NY Times, Steve Knoll (February 19, 1984). "Candidates weigh the uses of cable". This is a broken link. Searching for the title in google, and in the NY Times own search engine both failed to locate the article.
I'l make the same offer I make in all these cases. If somebody can pick the two or three (but no more) best sources to demonstrate notability, I'll take a closer look. But I'm not going to grovel over 46 references, most of which look dubious on the surface, and the best two of which I did examine and turned out to be sub-standard. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the tentative part of my not-a-vote-bolded-sounds-bite above. Nothing I've seen here over the past few days of discussion has demonstrated any useful sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This was also discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 February 19. To be fair, the nominator there was encouraged to write a new article, so this isn't really forum shopping, but I will note that they were selective about which suggestions they acted on (i.e. writing a new article) and which they didn't (i.e. supplying the new information which they asserted had come to light). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article creator tried to put this up at DRV, claiming "significant new information" had come up since the prior consensus to delete, but not bothering to state what this new information was or how they intended to source it. All available evidence points to this being a vanity/spam article for a non-notable person, almost certainly created by someone with a conflict of interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To John Pack Lambert, RoySmith. John Pack Lambert: This is info regarding the links you are mentioning above:

    • The NY Times, Steve Knoll (February 19, 1984). "Candidates weigh the uses of cable". - THIS here should be the link (it is a scanned article, added because Florescu, president of VPI back-then, is telling some info in respect of using cable -this is the '80, big thing back then, I believe http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mIV_cJPYBqQ/TaMPoWOWBnI/AAAAAAAAAAk/_nGnaOXU3BA/s1600/New+York+Times-+Article+about+John+Florescu.JPG
    • The second article you mentioned, I added to back up the claim "<it>he pioneered the use of cable television to broadcast political commercials" [considering that the mention in the article from 1982 saying "John Florescu, a cable television expert from Boston, told of using cable to reach Massachusetts people interested in local government, to get voters to caucuses, and of using a Portuguese language channel to reach fishermen in Fall River. He predicted that Democratic Presidential hopefuls would use cable in Iowa and New Hampshire in 1984, saying it had particular value in primaries and caucuses where turnout was small.</it>" might back that up].

Mention: I can definitely say that there is no interest (financially or others similar) and I do want to shed some light, giving you some context, to reconsider your suspicions of being a puff piece. I am involved in a research, along with Matei Cazacu (Romanian historian), about Florescu family (the Romanian boyars), and the subject of this article is part of the livings that are still with us today (and apparently he is receiving more screening time starting last year). I took many of the info collected in the first deleted article and tried to source those (I considered the discussion started there to harm this individual -making him look like a villain who wanted to brag online about himself with undocumented info. I personally found that discussion searching the name "John Florescu" on Google, and I found that is a bad thing to have online for someone that is fairly reputable). And this is what I tried to fix (you can go back in the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 February 19 to see that these are the thoughts that I tried to express there as well. This is the reason so many sources do appear in the bottom of this article (for trying to undo the things said in the first article about "getting a vanity page with unbacked info"). Going back, I realise this is maybe not the best way to write an article about this living individual; would you agree that is a good way to take out all the old descriptive facts and stick with only the notable ones? This is my first article on wiki and I spent a lot reading the rules, and, no doubt, I definitely missed some. I look for some guidance in making the correct editorial decisions since I am convinced you are all acting in good faith and only wanting to keep this encyclopaedia clean, even if it is user generated.

To RoySmith getting back with what you requested to get "two or three best sources to demonstrate notability" please take some time to read these hand picked below.

    • 1. Producer (last movie got him decorated by Crown Princess Margareta of Romania *IMDb LIST HERE* (Biruitorul the documentary is not making glowing mentions about the Royal House, it just presents facts from the western perspective)
    • 2. Filmography (2004-1986) http://www.hollywood.com/celebrities/john-m-florescu-58402708/
    • 3. Trump vs Clinton -last documentary made in late 2016 READ ARTICLE *HERE* PLEASE (this is a piece in Romanian; this producer is getting more screen time in the past months being the Romanian-American that is analysing the impact of the US elections for Europe)

Thank you all for keeping this a safe place and looking forward to get some guidance. ----MariaOlteanu

Thank you for supplying those. Unfortunately, the first two (IMDb and holywood.com) don't meet our requirement for reliable sources. You should read WP:RS to understand better what we're looking for. The third one, as you point out, is written in Romanian, which I can't read (and, unfortunately, the automatic translation services don't seem to handle Romanian). The fact that it's in Romanian doesn't disqualify it as a source, but as a practical matter, it makes it difficult for me to evaluate it. It would be useful if you could produce a translation so the reviewers here could read it in English. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check this video here RoySmith. It is faster than translating the Romanian text, and it is easier for you to get a better grasp of the documentary production and role in the Romanian news. I will read the WP:RS, thanks for the link and suggestion. ---[[[MariaOlteanu]] 20:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaOlteanu (talk • contribs)

    • Pro TV advertising a segment produced by Florescu for Pro TV doesn't count as "significant coverage [of Florescu] in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". You might wish to ponder the meaning of those words, and come back with sources that fit the description. - Biruitorul Talk 22:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


—Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • First, let's address the elephant in the room here: are you John Florescu or someone being paid or compensated to attempt to get this article created? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, while we're at it: no one's going to bother responding to that wall of text, but I'll address just one aspect. Commenting on the recent American presidential election, even producing a half-hour segment on it, isn't really indicative of notability. Not only did thousands of American journalists do some version of that, even in Romania, it wasn't exactly unusual; see e.g. here and here and here and here and here and here and here. - Biruitorul Talk 23:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your examples above, (n.n. listed by Biruitorul), are examples of articles on the U.S. election subject. Florescu made a documentary about the impact of the U.S. election in Europe (covered here on Adevărul, or here in Capital. It is largely covered by independent reliable sources. It is a documentary of significant importance, since it is covered by so many notable Romanian publications. ----User:MariaOlteanu 00:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lenahan Addressing the elephant. No, I am not. I do not search to argue the Wiki rules. If this person does not meet the criteria, then, of course, a page mentioning him is not needed and one should not try to push that. I do care for your time as well as mine, and I understand how enormous amount of resources are invested in moderating all these. It looks like I made all the incorrect decision following the last advice received here. Trying to fix the info that comes up on this page triggered a complete new avalanche of issues. I am searching for advice on how all the mentions that are potentially harming this individual can be deleted. If you can direct me to read some sources here it would be much appreciated. As I said above, I search this individual's name on Google and found a wiki page mentioning him as a pusher for a "vanity page" -this page. Whomever did this page, did nothing but harming a living individual that is respectable and in no case would try to create a page like this and exposing himself. This is what I tried to correct. Is there any way you can have a piece of advice for me knowing all the history behind this? ---User:MariaOlteanu —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC) ::Weak keep, leaning towards deletion.... Article would need severe work to warrant staying, though.RudyLucius (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

ATTN RoySmith: is the source above compliant IYO?

What does IYO mean? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Your Opinion. Just an acronym. User:MariaOlteanu (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I answered that question already. My offer was for you to suggest the two or three best sources for me to look at. You gave me three sources. I looked at them and didn't think they were good enough. I've done my part. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 3 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ancona

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

Doesn't seem notable outside of his death. His branch of the Klan has no separate article of its own. Rusted AutoParts 02:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This branch of the KKK should have a separate page. This page shows the the branch is an important KKK group.KU KLUX KAN'T. There is an argument for combining the Ancona page with a page for the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan,, but this group should be covered. After Ancona's death, the group may change. Nereocystis (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is on a person and there is no indication this person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment move to "Murder/Death of Frank Ancona" the death is getting coverage in all the big national and international newspapers. The guy got predeath attention (Discovery Channel documentary), among others. Remember we have bad people on here too sometimes. Looks like the trial with the suspected murderer might drag on too. I see no end in possible sources soon. GuzzyG (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no notability based on his position held. I think we should wait for a few months if an article on his death is warranted. LibStar (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 23:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Bennetts

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

Nondescript journalist. Appears to be created based on the INHERITED notability from Muhammad Ali. No reliable sources given to demonstrate notability, nor can I find any online. Primefac (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to exercise some care and tact when it comes to BLPs of accomplished article subjects. "Nondescript journalist" is not how I would characterize the article subject, who's a published author, prolific journalist -- with such pieces including this recent major piece in Newsweek, as well as articles in the Times of London, Telegraph, Canada's National Post, The Australian etc. And of course, Politico. So his articles about Russia are literally published the world over, it would seem. As for the question of notability, the article already has one review (ref #6). There is this shared review Commonweal. That's two reviews: typically I look for three as "multiple" per GNG. But taken as a whole, I would say he almost meets my benchmark for GNG and then does meet the first part of criterion #1 WP:JOURNALIST. He's clearly a widely published writer on the vital subject of Russia, whether he has the honour of being related to Ali or not. KEEP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 3 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. It's also doubtful that the Melbourne Rally was targeted at the 2020 re-election. The existing brief mention in the Donald Trump bio is sufficient at this stage. — JFG talk 23:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was advertised on the website of his campaign organization. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/schedule/register/melbourne-fl-2017/ SecretName101 (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that "other stuff exists" is not an argument in and of itself. However, this is a campaign, and whether it lasts to the election does not change that. SecretName101 (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
President Trump filed a Statement of Candidacy (FEC Form 2) for the 2020 election. It states that he does not formally announce his candidacy, but that he reached the threshold requiring him to file as a 2020 presidential candidate to comply with the Federal Election Campaign Act. I added the citation in the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he did. You are right. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2017/live-updates/politics/live-coverage-of-trumps-inauguration/president-trump-tells-the-fec-he-qualifies-as-a-candidate-for-2020/ SecretName101 (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I added as an additional citation in the article, as this is a third party source (whereas FEC filings are not), a requirement for WP:N. There are many others, and there will continue to be more. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. This is definitely not something to delete. It is well sourced; I verified and expanded the citations. These are events that have already happened, so it is not "too soon" or speculation. As "examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election" in WP:BALL, then a campaign for that election that is already underway is certainly notable. This should be a request to merge, in which case it would be best to close this RfD, and commence discussion into whether to merge and what article to merge to. I'm not even sure we should merge, but I'd rather have the appropriate process in place before making a decision. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, it's totally unique in the history of America. A candidate who starts campaigning right after being elected, it's probably a worldwide new invention. There's hundred of sources, sources about the start of the campaign, sources about the "why", there's even polls [1] [2] about Trump's reelection. --Deansfa (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This campaign is going to exist. Therefore keep this article.--Broter (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no way of knowing that. This seems more like wanting to keep it just because he filed, which is inadequate considering he could die, he could decide he doesn't like being president, or any of a number of other things could occur before 2019. At the very least, I don't see why "keep" is any better than "merge" at the current time. Master of Time (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Master of Time, even if that happens, the fact will remain that there still was a campaign. He has fundraised, he has retained a campaign staff. He has maintained officespace housing the campaign headquarters. Again, Evan Bayh never officially launched his 2008 presidential campaign, however it has been viewed as noteworthy and existent-enough to have its own article. SecretName101 (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to an appropriate article. That he fulfilled a legal requirement by filing a form does not make this a notable topic in its own right at this point in time. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By way of comparison, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 (his second) was started as a redirect on 13 April 2010 and became an article on 4 April 2011, which corresponds with my suggestion above. This is Paul (talk) 01:34, 5 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) Natg 19 (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Abdul-Hamid

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

As far as I can tell Abdul-Hamid has never played in a league that would grant him notability. The coverage he has received is not at the level of GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seems like reliable sources here do not offer enough material to write an article about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Crush (artist)

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

Musician with no evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Speedy deletion nomination was declined due to having a claim of significance, but the only claim of significance is WP:BLP1E coverage an outfit she wore at an event, which is irrelevant for a biography about a musician, and irrelevant in any case. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article should be kept because it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable resources including LA Times, People magazine, Elle, Teen Vogue among others. Therefore the article subject meets WP:GNG. One event does not apply because the article covers many aspects of the artist's life and career, not just one outfit worn at an event. More articles are still coming out and a new reference was added just today to MTV. The article has grown and evolved adding more references and coverage since this nomination and first few discussion posts were written. Closing admin please read the talk page under contested deletion section at talk page because some newer editors are leaving arguments and discussion there rather than here. Antonioatrylia (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What significant coverage? Let's look at the sources. LA Times: trivial mention. New York Times: trivial mention. People magazine: Trivial mention. Elle: Interview, which is a primary source, and doesn't count toward notability. Teen Vogue: some pictures but no actual coverage of the subject except for the BLP1E outfit. Sorry, this subject is vary far from meeting WP:GNG let alone WP:NACTOR. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should stay as it does meet WP:GNG and cites multiple reputable sources as referred to above; LA Times, People Magazine, E News etc. Though not all cited in this specific article, major sources like NY Times and Romper covered this artist as well and not only for what she wore, but also looking into who she is as an artist. This page has grown and should be given the chance to continue to be edited and grow. Eever19 (talk) 05:51 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    The "multiple sources" are not WP:SIGCOV. See my previous comment above. Trivial mentions don't count. No sources have been forthcoming that provide significant coverage of the subject as an artist. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thus several respondents here disagree with your opinion. The article subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources about her life and career and also contains information about an outfit she wore to an award show. So BLP1event does not apply. Article passes GNG which supercedes the lower threshold policies. Sure there are a couple references to imdb or youtube which are not considered reliable, but the reliable sources from NY Times, LA Times, People magazine, Elle, and Teen Vogue are indeed considered reliable sources. My discussion to keep is based on policies. I stand with my keep vote. Antonioatrylia (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As to the use of interviews in an article there are mixed opinions on that. If an interview is the only reference in an article it should not be used to denote notability, but when one interview is used with multiple reliable sources in an article, it may be taken into consideration when proving notabilty. Antonioatrylia (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Antonioatrylia: Where is the significant coverage? You keep gong on about NY Times, LA Times, People magazine, Elle, and Teen Vogue. Nobody is saying those aren't reliable. There is no significant coverage of the subject's life and work in those publications; therefore, your argument isn't grounded in Wikipedia policy. LA Times, NY Times, People: all trivial mentions, they don't count. Elle is a primary source, and Teen Vogue has no coverage, just some pictures. We need significant coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Some fleeting mentions for a silly outfit do not make for notability. The above mentioned reliable sources simply mention the subject. That's not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:42, 3 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 no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Markin

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a politician, notable only for serving on the municipal council of a suburban city and as a non-winning candidate for higher office. While we accept Toronto's city councillors as notable under WP:NPOL because it's an international global city, that does not extend to the councillors of the pre-amalgamation suburbs -- prior to 1997, the notability pass only goes to the core city and not to Etobicoke or Scarborough or North York. This article does not demonstrate that he's significantly more notable than the norm, however; it's based mostly on WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the election campaigns themselves. There are also BLP issues here, as he was convicted of a crime in 1984. However, that's not a good basis for a Wikipedia article about someone who didn't already pass our notability criteria for other reasons -- given that as far as we know he's still living as a private citizen, and his crime was a relatively minor one of little enduring import, for WP:BLPPRIVACY reasons he should be allowed to just put it behind him instead of having it immortalized on one of the most widely read websites in the world. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It seems that you are trying to elicit sympathy for Markin in your attempt to remove this article. Several politicians have had brushes with law pre or post term. I don't think that should be a factor in the removal decision. His notability as a politician is questionable except for the fact that he was as an ardent supporter of the Spadina expressway. Removal of this article may give the impression that there was not as much support for the expressway as there was in North York. I think that alone warrants a vote for keeping this article. The other thing is that someone did go to the trouble of researching this article and reliably citing it which also should be a factor for the keep side. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Where was the discussion that established the consensus that "While we accept Toronto's city councillors as notable under WP:NPOL because it's an international global city, that does not extend to the councillors of the pre-amalgamation suburbs -- prior to 1997, the notability pass only goes to the core city and not to Etobicoke or Scarborough or North York"? AusLondonder (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a longstanding consensus that the presumption of notability that's extended to city councillors in global cities does not extend to city councillors in those cities' suburbs. A city councillor in a suburban municipality of Toronto can still occasionally clear the bar if he can be well-sourced over GNG as more than just locally notable, but he's not automatically entitled to an article just because he exists. And the place for content about support for or opposition to the Spadina Expressway is in Spadina Expressway, not in spinning off separate BLPs of every single person who ever expressed an opinion one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep EncyclopediaUpdaticus makes some very good points. I would add that it seems that editors interpret the position requirements in a way that does not advance Wikipedia's mission to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content". If an elected official does not have a position of a certain rank, that in itself is not a reason for deletion. It only means that the position alone - absent good sourcing, additional coverage, or other elements of notability - do not satisfy the requirements for inclusion. A solidly written article about a low level official needs to be included. As the process stands right now, I am concerned that great articles might be deleted merely because someone was not high enough in government. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So where's the solid substance and good sourcing here? "Presented a $1,000 audio-visual presentation to the mayor and council of Wrocław, Poland on the culture, history and topography of North York" is a reason for a Wikipedia article somehow? Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's one line from a much larger, well sourced entry. He's served as a diplomat for his community which I think is worth including. I wish that all the cites were available electronically, but I don't think that makes them unreliable. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perhaps a suburban councillor wouldn't be notable for his career alone. But looking at some the sources in the article on-line "City issues 73 repair orders on Murray Markin's house". Toronto Star. December 1, 1976. p. A10 is quite an in-depth feature, and more than meets WP:GNG requirements. Combined with the news reports of this cocaine arrest, he more than meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per K.e.coffman, far too much information on personal affairs for somebody who probably fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. DrStrauss talk 13:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. local politician holding no major position, even locally. I don't se how any of the referencesare in depth--they all refer to trivial local events, or mere notices of appearances at events. Tripping over a manhole cover does not make someone notable. Nor does being arrested for cocaine possession. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 5 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. Redirects can be created at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Clifford

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

This page seems to have been created by a closely related party. A quick web search matches the username of the page creator as an employee of this page's subject, and notability concerns have arisen. A14lbham (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 3 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 no consensus. SoWhy 11:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth-Canton Marching Band

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

Fails WP:ORG. A very selective merge to the school may be appropriate. All secondary sources are local. John from Idegon (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Satisfies WP:BAND with significant coverage in numerous RSes, has won or placed 2nd or 3d in numerous competitions. This was kept in the previous AfD and it appears there is nothing new to suggest a different outcome. Gab4gab (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:BAND is not the applicable guideline here. As a high school music group, the primary goal is education, not performing. WP:ORG is clearly the applicable guideline, and there is no indication this group has been recognized outside Metro Detroit. And yes there has been significant change in the community's view on notability since 2007. ORG didn't even exist in 2007. This is a bloated article, filled with intricate detail most likely of little interest outside of people already connected with the subject, and largely meaningless outside the US. John from Idegon (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A review of past AfDs regarding marching bands indicates there is no consensus regarding the applicable guideline. Consensus has been reached based on GNG, ORG and BAND (& probably others). ORG did in fact exist back on 2007. At the time of the previous nom of this band it was an English Wikipedia notability criteria. Notability is based on existing sources, not the current state of an article. Gab4gab (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as Gab4gab says, there is little consensus on the notability of marching bands. DrStrauss talk 13:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. there may be little consensus on the notability of marching bands, but this one is clear enough. No first place in a national competition; any number of runner up positions are not the same as coming in first. No apparent influence on the field in general.Absurd article, of no interest to anyone outside of the school. Extensive uncited material, most of it based upon mere opinion, such as: " however, the inclusion of this controversial pocket had gained widespread use as a holder of loose change". No notable alumni. No visible references outside the immediate area. No reason to expect there would be any. An opinion saying keep, because there's no consensus of standards is not an argument for keep, as it gives no reason that applies to the article in question. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way back when, I was in my award-winning high school marching band (which I see is still winning awards, Go Cardinals!). But, really, it's a high school band. I don't see anything in the article that makes me think it's anything more than that. I agree that WP:BAND does not apply here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG is the "general notability guideline". It does not apply only to organizations, companies, schools or bands. It applies to every article. There are many cases where a given thing X fails the notability guideline for that subject area yet passes GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at WP:BAND we see that the guideline applies to "orchestras". Ok, this marching band is not an orchestra. But, it is every bit as large. I fail to see how an instrumental group of the same size as a typical orchestra doesn't qualify under WP:BAND simply because it uses instrumentation that is different than a typical orchestra. Reading WP:BAND, we see it says such ensembles may be notable if the ensemble "has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." The Grand National Championship run by Bands of America is "most prestigious national marching band event available to high school marching bands". I can't see any reason for doubt that this championship would not qualify. The band for discussion here has won this national level competition not once, not twice, but THREE times, tied for second most ever. They've been 2nd twice, and 3rd twice. Any one of these 7 national level placings would have them qualify under WP:BAND. Yet, they've done it _7_ times. How many times does a band have to do this before they are notable? I was concerned about WP:AUD, but note coverage outside of their region with this, and others. I also note that finding a massive number of results is likely complicated by the band's last top three placing being in 2001...a decade and a half ago. I believe with the sources provided and available that WP:GNG is readily met (and yes, WP:GNG applies), as well as WP:BAND and WP:AUD. This article is badly, badly in need of a rewrite. There's a serious amount of puffery and fluff here. I mean seriously, discussing a third pocket being removed from the uniform and noting very little media attention over the event? Really? Regardless, the sad state of an article is NOT a reason to delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 10 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 no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriko Ono

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Current sourcing does not have the type of in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show notability, and searches did not turn up enough either. Onel5969 TT me 18:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Michitaro's sources need to be addressed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 5 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. But needs a complete rewrite.  Sandstein  21:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal Golden Visa

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

Portugal promotion Atsme📞📧 17:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add that a Visa program for a country should be added to the respective country's WP article, not as a stand alone article which makes it appear purely promotional. Atsme📞📧 01:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - it's certainly worthy of mention in Portugal, but does it warrant being a stand alone? It's solicitation as a stand alone. Just my thoughts....Atsme📞📧 22:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your query, Atsme, if it meets GNG, then a stand alone article is warranted. Schwede66 07:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Schwede66, but I'm of the mind the article is promotional in a commercial sense - described as an "investment scheme" - therefore, has questionable encyclopedic value. I see little difference in this VISA program and most tourism promotions, all of which are promotional marketing. Atsme📞📧 09:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is NOT worth of mention in the Portugal article. At most it should be linked from some article linked from some article (linked from some article...) linked from Portugal. That is, having it in the main article would be undue weight, even for the scandal involving a ministry and top administrative people (sorry, I can't find the correct English words right now). Nabla (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
please consider my initial "comment" as a "delete, without prejudice for recreation", unless someone expands it (for myself I am sick of the continuous stream of scandals of this guy robbed that to take the time to write about this one - plus, scandals is far from "my thing" over here :-) - Nabla (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a simple delete response would work *Delete? Regardless, point taken. Atsme📞📧 20:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I agree that the Canadian article is encyclopedic as it provides information about temporary residency. It is not a promotion. The article in question here actually is an undeniable promotion, and states that it is a promotion and is written like a promotion: The Portugal Golden Visa is the Portugal residency program to promote people to move and live in Portugal. That is not at all like the Canadian explanation of temp residency. My concern is that if WP allows these marketing promotions to stand, it will open a can of worms. Atsme📞📧 19:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article addresses an aspect of a country's immigration policy. We have plenty of this on US policy. I agree that the article could be better, but I think it's more substantive policy than promotion.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:32, 5 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 03:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randy McDowell

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Couldn't find any articles about him on Google, ref is his IMDB page, and parts appear to be minor. LovelyLillith (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More substantive, policy- and guideline-grounded input needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 3 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) 19:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toshony

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

While the existence of this hoax is clearly established, and it had some ephemeral reportage, it has no durable notability. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 4 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 Trans man. Unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 07:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transmasculine Definition

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

Its content is duplicated and worded much better in articles including gender dysphoria, transgender, transsexual, gender etc. DrStrauss talk 13:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: as a redirect? I don't think that very many people will type that in anyway and with "definition" it's not suited to WP WP:NOTDICTIONARY. DrStrauss talk 13:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I've adjusted my !v on reappraisal. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 16:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DrStrauss: You're right about typing that in! But, is there no salvageable maerial from it (to add to the object page) before redirecting? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 13:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: if we're talking about properly sourced content then it's little, if any. DrStrauss talk 16:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Weak consensus that it passes GNG. If there is another deletion discussion concerning this article then the nominator should put a strong deletion rationale up. (non-admin closure) J947 03:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harrogate bus route 36

Harrogate bus route 36 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable bus route, fails WP:NOTGUIDE Nördic Nightfury 09:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:NOTGUIDE" is too vague; could you be more specific? Peter James (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a reason for deletion, either. Anyway, the line has been discussed as an example for a successful modal shift towards public transport in several learned articles, also outside the UK, which IMHO makes it rather notable. I have included a few references in the article. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See my second comment above and note that reliable secondary sources exist. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What secondary sources? Icannot find any.Charles (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pilsner, Beale, White, Ten Percent Club ... all proper books and professional journal articles. Google Scholar may find more, but these show already notability far beyond the region. --Schlosser67 (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pilsner is not a learned journal article, it is an industry trend piece. Beale is unverifiable as listed. White is indeed a journal article, but is one sentence is a very broad survey of rural transportation in Europe. Ten Percent Club appears to combine the detriments of Pilsner and Beale as both an industry trend piece (judging by the title), and unverifiable as listed. Notability asks more of us as editors than throwing in a bunch of Google Scholar results. Perhaps oddly enough, I am changing my !vote to Keep. Not because of these poor sources, but because of the BBC and Harrogate Advertiser articles, which are enough to pass WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Klinck

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

Non-notable producer. Winged Blades Godric 10:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades Godric 10:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. The creator of the article seems to be a COI editor (see my comments on the talk page) and this article reads like a resume. Her awards are very industry-specific and it is unlikely that over and above the routine coverage of her wins there is much in-depth coverage to satisfy GNG, I couldn't find any. Domdeparis (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respectfully disagree with Winged Blades of Godricl and Domdeparis. The subject being written about is an important member of the documentary film community both in Canada and internationally. She has been nominated and won several awards both in Canada and abroad for visual research. Her work is of such high quality that she was asked by documentarian Werner Herzog to work on his recent documentary Into the Inferno. For these two editors to dismiss her awards as being industry specific is to overlook the importance of the Canadian film industry. Visual research is an integral part of historical documentary filmmaking just as cinematography is to feature film. The article has been edited to not read like a resume but to present the facts supported by multiple sources. I ask that both Winged Blades and Domdeparis redact their request that this page be deleted based on their belief that Elizabeth is insignificant. Or, if they are unwilling to do that, explain in greater detail why they do not believe she is worthy of mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackjohnnmartin (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Jackjohnnmartin: I may be wrong and of course I am not outing you but if the fact that your user name is the same as her husband's is just a coincidence it might be useful to state that here but if it isn't I do understand why you are defending your article and that you feel personally slighted by the nomination. it is very difficult to have a Neutral point of view when there is a conflict of interest but please don't take this nomination so personally. Just as a reminder conflict of interests should be accompanied by a disclosure on associated talk pages --Domdeparis (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, I see she's won a Gemini Award, among others, which was Canada's highest TV honour. We was the subject of this profile in the Canadian documentary journal, POV. But that looks to be an affiliated reference. But POV also reported separately that she received a lifetime achievement award from FOCAL_International#FOCAL_International_Awards. Hot Docs, which has no affiliation with her, did an interview with her for their industry series. I think we may have a visual researcher who genuinely meets WP:CREATIVE criterion #1. The lifetime achievement award from UK-based FOCAL seems like a really big deal. keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and there's also this interview with her in Archival Storytelling: A Filmmaker's Guide to Finding, Using, and Licensing Third-Party Visuals and Music, which you can read in Gbooks. (The book ref also verifies that she was an Emmy nominee). The nomination statement errs in calling her a "producer." She is not. But she seems to be eminently notable in her field. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Just for info she is a member of the board of directors of FOCAL international and the award may be a big deal but giving awards to your board of directors is not very independent. The subject has worked for Hotdocs in the past by giving workshops, here. That said when you work in a very specialised field you start to have connections to all the different institutions and publications after a while. Domdeparis (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't notice the prior affiliation with FOCAL, you're quite right. But I see she's won three Gemini/Canadian Screen Awards (the Geminis became the CSAs) which are Canada's highest screen honours. There's also the News & Documentary Emmy Award nom for HBO's Middle Sexes. Despite the very valid points you've raised, I still believe she's a notable visual researcher per CREATIVE. COI is always a concern, but when we've a notable topic I tend to come down on the side of clean up if necessary, add a connected contributor template to the article talk page, but preserve. And I for one think that's what we have here. Of course, others are coming down elsewhere, I get that. (I also see we don't even have a category, Category:Visual researchers, fwiw.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really sure that a visual researcher is considered as a CREATIVE, it is more of a documentalist. According to the Visual Researchers Society of Canada here
"Q: What exactly does a visual researcher do?
A: A researcher wears several hats and you can hire them for one aspect of your project, or for all of it. They do visual research—looking for footage and stills in a very wide range of sources using an extensive network of contacts. They can also manage the archive/asset as it comes in, logging it and tracking it in the post-production phase so regular costings and copyright assessments can be done. They can also handle financial negotiations with suppliers, using their preferred rates and their own negotiating skills to get the best possible rate for the material and use your money in the most efficient way. Finally they can handle all of the license agreement negotiations to ensure that you have all the protections you need in place and provide a complete package of deliverables at the end."
Unless I'm very much mistaken we are not really in the domain of the creative process this is more of a technical/administrative role. It is fair to say that the Canadian screen Awards are the equivalent to the British Academy Television Awards (and not the BAFTA as such) but there are no awards for researchers and in the Emmys there is a single category for research in the News and Documentary awards. The visual research award seems to be a very specific Canadian award that doesn't have a parallel in other award ceremonies. So to be perfectly honest it's not surprising that there isn't a Category:Visual researchers. Domdeparis (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow The ArchAngel

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for WP:MUSICBIO. The page creator could be the subject himself. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no significant coverage about this musician in independent reliable sources. The references in the article serve to verify information in the article but are for the most part, simply directory entries which do nothing to establish notability. The best source is this, and Shadow The ArchAngel is literally one musician in a list of musicians listed in one sentence of the article. This is well short of what is needed for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 4 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. MBisanz talk 23:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones

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

Contested prod, query notability, only a small amount of trivial coverage. This person was mentioned in passing during an earlier deletion discussion in relation to her older brother. However the argument in that case was that he was likely to become Earl of Snowdon eventually, that argument does not apply in her case. PatGallacher (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Nom, See the discussion I was referring to. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Armstrong-Jones PatGallacher (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that clicking toolbar is misleading because virtually nothing comes up on Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones. You need ot search : "Margarita Armstrong-Jones". E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the fact that the peasants find her revolting and the deletionsists are storming the gates of the palace, Her Youthful Ladyship gets kept because she gets ongoing coverage in the press and because of the number of number of books that give her a shout-out, not to mention the ~500 hits per day that her Wikipedia page gets. A personal note to User:PatGallacher, I feel your pain, truly I do. Like her Cousin Charles, Lady Margarita is living proof that the French Revolution was fought in vain. Worse, you and I are are fated to endure news accounts of her ladyship's first visit to Ascot, first drunken binge as an undergrad at St. Andrews, and of her first indiscreet vacation selfie on a yacht. But what can we mere peasants do? Wikpeidia has rules and our rules say that where there are this many sources, the article stays.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per E.M.Gregory's expressive comments. I understand why the notability concerns are raised. However, if she doesn't garner as much public attention as other (minor) royals now, she will later. She's only 14, and judging by this recent diff there is already enough. People of her position in society almost always become socialites to a certain level. If the article were deleted now, it would only be recreated later when there is significant media attention. That would surely not be worth it for someone to have to recreate the article completely, especially in spite of the ~507 avg. views the article receives daily — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 22:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The argument that she will get coverage in the future is a crystal ball argument. We base articles on the coverage that is given now, and that is currently inadequate to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No crystal ball needed. Think of her as analogous to a young actor who has gained press attention for playing small roles in a number of productions, and then had a featured role in one of the blockbuster productions of the decade (The Royal Wedding), which has gotten her ongoing attention for the several years now. If a young actor had this kind of press coverage, she would pass WP:BIO. We do have articles on children who played only one role Peter Ostrum, or appeared only in a single photo Sharbat Gula. (E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 3 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. The only two arguments to keep fail to provide any policy-based reasons and are from users with very limited editing history. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Milano

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Vibe article you linked to is four sentences long. Did I miss the rest of it, or are those four sentences intended to establish his "viral" notability on Wikipedia? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources consist of subject talking about himself; database listings (such as MTV.com); and sites that post videos with promotional text. It lacks independent, third party coverage that would convey notability. Arguments to keep based on the subjects collaborations are not backed up with significant coverage, apparently claiming notability by association. ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Seresin

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

Article lacks WP:RS. I have tried to find something about this person on GNews but all I got were passing mentions. This suggests that WP:GNG is not met. Contested WP:Prod. Schwede66 19:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep article contains ample reliable sources to establish a base notability. Not every cinematographer/film crew member will have a significant amount of sources laying around. Seresin is developing a substantial filmography that will likely only grow more with time. Nominating for deletion now I feel would be premature. Rusted AutoParts 19:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? What we have is a primary source (his own website, which is of course not RS), an IMDb entry (which is particularly mentioned on the RS page), an advert (not RS either). That leaves us with the New York Film Academy source, which has at least some substance to it. It's got "blog" at the top of the page, but I admit that there are some things labelled as blog that I would consider reliable. I'm not sure where this one stands. It would surprise me if the item got "editorial oversight", but maybe they do that. It's a private school, so publishing this blog has possibly more of a promotional aspect than it being of journalistic nature. But in either case, that's the only source that may pass the reliable source test. So can you please explain, Rusted AutoParts, what you mean be "ample reliable sources"? Schwede66 17:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The landscape of information has been evolving, from written word to social media. I feel that Seresin's website can and should be used as it does contain information needed to establish a biography. It'll be used when people need information about the man in articles/sources that'll talk about him.
I stand firm by my premature stance. The article is barely a week and a half old, and still has time to gain additional information. Rusted AutoParts 06:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you talk about your "premature stance", you seem to indicate that you yourself aren't convinced that he has gained general notability. When you say that his "filmography ... will likely only grow more with time", you are invoking what we call WP:CRYSTALBALL on Wikipedia. Notability is about the here and now, and not what might be at some point in the future. Schwede66 07:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty brazen assumption. I'm simply stating it's premature to say it's time to delete his article. Not me codedly stating "he's not notable". Me stating his filmography will grow is just me lamenting that he's a working cinematographer and will get more work. Rusted AutoParts 02:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. At best, WP:TOOSOON. He's worked on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and World War Z, but until he picks up an Oscar or at least a nomination, he isn't there yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. And no, the subject's own web site is not a reliable source for establishing notability. No prejudice to recreation in the future when his developing filmography garners him the the coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 2 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  21:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airware

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

Largely a business listing with only what would be advertised to clients including the fact it's focused with such specifics as company funding, support and activities and the sources mirror it by only being mere announcements and mentions; there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone and searches simply found the mirrored ones like here. History shows no convincing signs other than the casual changes in a presumably manner of keeping it as an exact business listing. When we founded Wikipedia, one of our main policies was not allowing advertising and this here fits the exact criteria. In fact, even the current source adding couldn't satisfy what our policies need, see:

  • 1 is still too trivial, being at their business-specific section, and itself contains noticeable business quotes
  • 2 is itself a PR-award, which violates WP:CORPDEPTH which states such PR awards are unacceptable, regardless wherever published
  • 3 is still similar to the first one, which itself then contains a CV-esque of the company's own funding and financial history before finishing a few sentences later with the "Trademarked by Airware". which violates WP:CORPDEPTH once again
  • 4 is itself a business announcement, including focusing in a "New business"-esque with all the natural signs of PR
  • 5 is still a business published announcement
  • 6
  • 7 is a clearly labeled press release, since it formally states "Company gains new funding" which itself violates WP:CORPDEPTH (which itself is a simplest standard before WP:NOT is then applied)
  • The next two, 8 and 9, still violate WP:CORPDEPTH given they're PR publications which we've long labeled as unacceptable given their clear focus in PR and satisfying the company's own need for it, their articles will also then clearly state "Information by the company". Although these two may not, they still largely focus solely in the company's own quoted words, website-supported information and their financials and fundin
  • See also then my own executed search which found nothing but clear announcements and here's the analysis:
  • first 10 here all consist of either clearly labeled press releases, trade publications or republishing of it
  • next 10 is same (and I even found one of the PRs from above in there)
  • next 10 is same, along with a few majorly published ones here and there
  • next 10 is same
  • next 10 is same
  • next 10 is same
  • If we cannot even guarantee the substance our policies would need, there's nothing to suggest why settling with published and republished business announcements would benefit our encyclopedia. As it is, there's the clear history signs alone, take this SPA for example, which cared to focus with mentioning the company. SwisterTwister talk 19:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Jansen, Bart (July 23, 2015). "Airware navigates future of drones". USA Today. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  • Jansen, Bart (December 15, 2015). "Airware CEO is Small Business Innovator of the Year". USA Today. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  • Russon, Mary-Ann (September 12, 2014). "Drone Operating System: MIT Startup Airware and Nasa Transforming Hobby into Commercial Industry". International Business Times. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  • "Drones CAN'T deliver goods ... oh. Air traffic control system backed by NASA, you say?". The Register. September 16, 2014. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  • Haggin, Patience (October 24, 2016). "Drone Startups Pivoting to Enterprise Services". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 9, 2017. (subscription required)
  • Gallagher, Sean (August 14, 2013). "Raspberry Fly? Airware's Linux and ARM developer platform for drones". Ars Technica. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  • "Why Is America Losing the Commercial Drone Wars?". Washington Monthly.
  • These are the same sources as shown and analyzed above. I will note, however, something I had not mentioned above, which is the blatantly press release ones are casually placed whenever the company's capital quarter happened, which is beyond simply being coincidental when every single article shares the same PR consistency. To actually quote WP:CORPDEPTH: [Unacceptable sources are]: Simple announcements and statements, press releases, passing mentions, anything by or for the company and advertising or anything where the company talks about itself, wherever" and that fits the sources, therefore unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertorials and/or PR announcements abound which follow the same pattern: overview of drones, CEO's MIT background, amount of funding raised, quotes/interview from CEO. The sources mentioned above follow the same pattern. The "USA Today" articles are a profile of a company that entered their competition and a profile of the winner. Same pattern. Ditto for "The Register" and the WSJ article. The Washington Monthly article appears to be an attempt at lobbying to change the laws in the USA, complete with ample quotes and arguments from Jesse Kallman, Airware's head of business development. The Ars Technica article is a little difference as it discusses the product and a Raspberry Pi. Not a brilliant source but can be useful to indicate notability - just not enough on its own. -- HighKing++ 16:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making an entrance

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

Original research from 2006, which survived a 2007 AFD on the basis that someone was bound to give it "tender loving care' and make it encyclopedic. A listing of ways characters appear, such as "from the feet up" or "in silhouette first." I did not find reliable and independent secondary sources to support what is in the article, other than noticing that sometimes characters appear in these ways. They appear in lots of other ways, too, so who says these are the most important ways? Edison (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This debate has been open for almost a month. This amount of time is such that, rather than continuing to Relist it over and over again, it would probably be better to Close it as No Consensus and then Open another Nomination from scratch. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Mysterious El Willstro: Seems to me the consensus is to delete. No one thinks it is acceptable as is. I would support saving the history, if you or any other editor(s) has the will to revive it to the point where it is not all WP:OR. The question is: Can anything of the current article be saved as grounded in WP:RS as it is right now? If not, what is the point of keeping any of it or its history, even if it is ultimately notable? Someone could always try and recreate it later if they can show it is notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:02, 4 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Becki Ronen

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue or Procedural close  Delete !votes have failed to establish the case (1) that a search for sources including sources in the article finds less significant coverage than an objective level that defines WP:GNG, (2) that there are no merge targets, and (3) that there are no redirect targets.  WP:Notability is not a policy, rather WP:Deletion policy; including ATD, DEL-REASON, and CONTENT; is the policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as, in this case, there's no signs of the substance we need, simply participating in an event is not an automatic factor of notability and the sources are only mere announcements and mentions for them; there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone involved and the article shows no other signs of the needed significance. WP:NEXIST is not applicable here, because it's used when sources were otherwise shown and found, but none have been, and since the current ones are unconvincing, there's nothing else otherwise; next, WP:NTEMP is not applicable since it's used when subjects were in fact convincing, but this one isn't since it's simply mere participation. In fact, there's been no noted career achievements since then, so that's also self-explanatory. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia in no way denigrates local sources as non-reliable. Reliable is the key, not wide-encompassing. The Wichita Eagle and The Topeka Capital-Journal both have Wikipedia articles, as you can see. NPR affiliates are obvious. Tapered (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:17, 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) 00:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decisive Keep There are several dedicated references from WP:RS, especially The Wichita Eagle, The Topeka Capital-Journal, and NPR affiliates. Whether her notability derives in part from a Beauty contest or not, dedicated pieces from reliable sources = notability = keep. Tapered (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear Admins Please sift through this discussion carefully. Please note that the nomination is encompassed by one word, with no attempt to synch it with Wikipedia guidelines. It doesn't get much better after that. None of the Deleters explain how their nominal citings of Wikipedia policy dovetail with the contents of the article. The use them like talismans: 'I mention this in connection with this article, so that means what I'm saying is so.' Other Deleters, in effect, say, 'I don't like this article, out with it.' There's a cultural condescension toward Beauty contests and their entrants at work here. Please don't take this as even a tacit endorsement of said contests. It's simply a plea for intellectual honesty in the matter of this article and Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which I see as absent in much of the above verbiage. Tapered (talk) 05:11, 5 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 no consensus. slakr\ talk / 07:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material Sciences Corporation

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

no evidence for notability. Previously Prodded and restored for improvement, but no substant improvement has taken place--proesumably because there are no sufficient sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question above was not whether notability persists but whether it exists? WP:LISTED indicates no automatic notability from a stock exchange listing. It does suggest that in the case of a major listing (NYSE being the example) sources should be available if sought. But in such cases, and similarly in this case, of a firm which is said to have had a former NASDAQ listing, notability still needs to be demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
having a listing on the main board of the nYSE has usually been regarded as justification for inclusion, but not having a listing on NASDAQ--some major firrms do prefer to remain of NASDAQ, but the majority of firms there are very minor. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you have the evidence that it was listed on NYSE and you know that notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP), so why haven't you withdrawn your nomination?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNG requires sources, which in the plural could mean zero but in the context means two.  Please show the evidence from your searches where you were unable to find two sources, which will in turn allow others to show where your research was insufficient.
    WP:WHYN has been repeatedly rejected over the years as a part of the guideline proper for good reason.  It is circular reasoning that if applied proves that this topic is notable...that proof being that since we have an article, this proves that we have sufficient reliable sources to have an article.  The current consensus is that WP:N is not a content guideline, see WP:NEXIST.
    WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an essay built on material rejected at WP:ATA as not policy based, because neither WP:N nor WP:V require sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand what you are trying to say. Regardless from what I could comprehend
  1. Companies need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I searched enough and I just couldn't find enough sources.
  2. The burden of proof to show sources lies on the people who are arguing that the article should be kept. So far I haven't seen enough reliable secondary sources.
  3. WP:WHYN is still a part of WP:N. There is no proof that it has been "rejected as part of the guideline" proper.
  4. WP:WHYN is not circular. It goes one way. "If there are not enough sources, we shouldn't have an article". That doesn't mean "If there are sources, we should definitely have an article"
  5. "Please show the evidence from your searches where you were unable to find two sources" I have no idea how to show negative proof.
There aren't enough reliable sources for this article. I stick to my delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So we see no evidence that there is any problem with either WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability; rather, attention is directed to editors, guidelines, and essays to deflect from the evidence of reported research.  Again, showing your search results allows other editors to consider the basis for your claim.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as what matters in these cases is if the article itself can be improved, and with the needed substance at that, but nothing has been offered here or different from what the article currently has, so our policy WP:What Wikipedia is not still applies, because the history here and all still shows a clear advertised business page, not an encyclopedia article. For example, above "can't find anything significant about this company other than press releases, corporate websites and typical business directory listings" still applies, since that's still what searches and the article shows, so WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:BASIC and WP:N all apply since it's not independent at all. As our policies note, if when there's enough for an article, we can reconsider but not when there's only a presumptive "maybe we can improve" or "sources exist". SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and AllyD. Sources do not show it passes WP:CORPDEPTH, and the in-depth coverage doesn't meet WP:GNG guidelines. Onel5969 TT me 16:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sufficient sources, passes WP:CORP -- HighKing++ 17:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- The available sources do not demonstrate that this passes either WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG, and I've been unable to find anything better. Reyk YO! 19:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- sources presented at this AfD do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH to build an NPOV article. This material might as equally be housed on the company web site. I thus do not find this page to be of value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTED, there is no inherent notability, and that guideline is unambiguous in asserting that some listed companies may not be notable. No sources in the article or here suggest notability, and nothing has been offered in this discussion to change that situation. Keep The sources found by Cunard below are reliable, independent and provide some depth. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cunard: These are some very well found sources. Impressive work. I have changed my vote as this clearly fulfills the "significant coverage" requirement in sources that are most certainly independent. The first source, which covers the activities of the company and mentions its demise, is particularly relevant. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Nelson, Brett (2003-01-24). "Shhh! Struggling Material Sciences is betting its future on a dated feat of metallurgy called "quiet" steel. Your Ford pickup may have it". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22.

      The article notes:

      In April, 17 years in upper management at Quaker Oats, Whirl-pool and FMC Corp., the jovial, 64-year-old Michael Callahan gave up retirement and the occasional consulting gig to run a sleepy manufacturer that last year netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales. Material Sciences Corp. of Elk Grove Village, Ill. was formed in 1971 to buy companies inventing new materials. Most never took off, but it managed to go public in 1984 on the back of a unit that had found a fast way to paint the raw steel and aluminum used to make car bodies, roofing and garage doors. Coil coating–which involves priming metal rolls weighing up to 50,000 pounds with absorbent chemicals, then painting them at up to 700 feet per minute on a mill–accounts for two-thirds of the company’s revenues.

      ...

      Luckily, slick marketing by Lexus made quiet cars all the rage in the early 1990s. Mat Sci’s big break didn’t come until 1998 when it began supplying the steel firewall between the dashboard and the engine for the 1999 Ford Explorer Sport Trac pickup truck. That win helped land a contract for the same part, and another one for a quiet-steel oil pan, on Ford’s new F-150 pickup. Today the company has contracts at each of the Big Three and is pursuing more than 150 new auto deals.

      ...

      As for competition, Material Sciences is far and away the dominant supplier of damped steel for autos–perhaps a $600 million market. “Our biggest competitors are the car designers,” says Edward Vydra, Mat Sci’s recently retired chief technology officer. “If they can design cars without noise, that’s it [for us]. At the same time, they are our biggest friends.”

    2. Nelson, Brett (2000-10-30). "So What's Your Story?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22.

      The article notes:

      Directions aren’t always necessary. Chicago-based Material Sciences Corp., a $500 million (sales) maker of laminated metal and films, had eight analysts following it in 1995. Only two remain. A nasty confluence of missed earnings, brokerage attrition and shrinking market cap (now $170 million) took its toll. Publicly traded since 1984, Material Sciences has spent $1 million on promotional help over the past five years, to no effect. Perhaps shedding the moneylosing steel-galvanizing line–and focusing solely on profitable products such as antivibrational-steel car components and window films that reject solar heat–will spark Wall Street’s interest

    3. Englander, David (2013-04-03). "Primed for "Material" Gains". Barron's. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22.

      The article notes:

      With a market cap of $104 million, and only two sell-side analysts covering its stock, Material Sciences floats under the radar of most investors.

      Material Sciences (ticker: MASC) makes specialty materials, primarily for the automotive industry. Its metal coatings are used on car bodies and parts. The company is perhaps best known for its Quiet Steel product, which reduces noise and vibrations in cars and appliances.

      In the last year, Material Sciences hit a rough patch. Sales have declined, due to lower shipments of metal fuel tanks, as Ford has converted some of its vehicles to plastic tanks.

      ...

      Based in Elk Grove Village, Ill., Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like Quiet Steel and Quiet Aluminum, and its coated metal products, which include electrogalvanized materials, as well as ElectroBrite, an alternative to stainless steel in appliances. Major customers include U.S. Steel, Chrysler and Ford.

      ...

      It's worth noting that Material Sciences is a thinly traded stock, with only 17,000 shares changing hands a day. That can make the stock volatile. Investors should exercise caution when building a position.

    4. Dinger, Ed (2004). "Material Sciences Corporation". In Grant, Tina (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories. Vol. 64. Detroit, Michigan: St. James Press. ISBN 1558625666. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22 – via Encyclopedia.com.

      From Cengage.com:

      When students, job candidates, business executives, historians and investors need accurate and detailed information on the development of any of the world's largest and most influential companies, direct them to International Directory of Company Histories. This multi-volume work is the first major reference to bring together histories of companies that are a leading influence in a particular industry or geographic location.

      The book notes:

      Public Company

      Incorporated: 1971

      Employees: 740

      Sales: $266.8 million (2003)

      Stock Exchanges: New York

      Ticker Symbol: MSC

      NAIC: 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (Except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers

      Material Sciences Corporation (MSC) is a publicly traded company based in Elk Grove, Illinois. It designs, manufactures, and markets materials-based solutions for electronic, acoustical/thermal, and coated metal applications. MSC's metal laminate product, NRGDamp, is used in the electronics industry to reduce noise and vibrations in hard disk drives. The company also produces Quiet Steel, used by the auto industry to reduce noise and vibration. The material has been applied primarily in dash panels but is also being used in an increasing number of other applications such as wheel wells and floor pans. In addition, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces painted and electrogalvanized sheet metal for use in building and construction products, automobile exterior panels, and appliances such as refrigerators and freezers. MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets.

      Founding the Company in 1971

      MSC was founded in 1971 as a holding company to acquire businesses involved in advanced materials technologies. The most important of these companies, and the only one in the fold when the company went public in 1984, was Pre Finish Metals. It was originally known as All Weather Steel Products, founded in Chicago in 1951 by Roy Crabtree. The company started out applying protective aluminum paint to sheets of metal, used to make air ducts for heating and air conditioning systems. The demand for the product grew so rapidly that All Weather soon dropped sheet processing in favor of continuous coil coating. In 1954 the operation was transferred to a converted mushroom barn in Des Plaines, Illinois, where new coil processing equipment was installed to meet ever increasing demand. Then, in May 1958, sawdust insulation in the roof ignited spontaneously and the subsequent explosion and fire completely destroyed the building. All Weather's management took immediate steps to establish a new production facility and preserve the company's customer base. Three competitors agreed to fill outstanding orders, with All Weather's personnel dispatched to oversee production. ...

      The book provides extensive discussion of the subject.
    5. International Directory of Company Histories also provides a "Further Reading" section that provides more sources about Material Sciences Corporation:

      Arndorfer, James B., "Gabelli Groups Turn Up Heat on Metal Firms," Crain's Chicago Business, June 2, 2003, p. 3.

      Keefe, Lisa M., "Metal Firm Is Up for Sale," Crain's Chicago Business, July 2, 1990, p. 70.

      Murphy, H. Lee, "Bad Timing Snarls Material Sci. Deal," Crain Chicago Business, July 19, 1999, p. 36.

      Nelson, Brett, "Shhh!," Forbes, November 24, 2003, p. 84.

      Savitz, Eric J., "A Fresh Shine," Barron's, November 4, 1991, p. 14.

      Setton, Dolly, "Steel Deal," Forbes, October 18, 1999, p. 190.

      Troxell, Thomas N., Jr., "Tripod for Growth," Barron's, July 1, 1985, p. 33.

    6. Hoover's has an industry report about Material Sciences Corporation under a paywall at http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-report.material_sciences_corporation.f622bdcf9e26730a.html. The summary notes:

      Material Sciences Corporation, known as MSC, makes engineered materials, as well as coated steel and electro-galvanized steel products. MSC has two primary product segments: acoustical (anti-noise and vibration products, including the trademarked Quiet Steel reduced vibration metal) and coated (decorative and protective metal coatings). The company's products are used by the appliance, automotive, building systems, computer, construction, furniture, HVAC, lighting, and telecommunications industries. Automobile manufacturers are among the company's largest clients. MSC gets most of its sales in the US.

      Hoover's lists a sample report about Exxon at http://www.hoovers.com/content/dam/english/dnb-solutions/general-company-research/69-exxon-hooversreport.pdf that discusses Exxon's "Company Description" and "Company History" in detail.

      Similar coverage Material Sciences Corporation in Hoover's industry report about it would provide significant coverage of the Material Sciences Corporation.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Material Sciences Corporation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment and analysis - All of the sources above have clear pricing and costs information or along with other primary-sourced content, which violates our main policy, WP:Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, see netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales, That win helped land a contract for the same part, Material Sciences has spent $1 million, Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces, MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets., . The company's products are used, they most of their sales in US. Next, the information contains clear quotes such as the company life story, the businesspeople thoughts and plans, etc. which are unacceptable for article significance. None of that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG given it's all PR information, not for an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 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 keep. The article needs some sources quick, as the grandfather clause may be removed soon. (non-admin closure) J947 19:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Adkins

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

Apparently a minor actor that has received no coverage in reliable secondary sources and therefore fails Biographies of living persons and GNG Steve Quinn (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles of (former) child actors known for only 1-2 roles so why should we delete this article of an actor with multiple Movie and TV roles? --Denniss (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of North Dakota Greek Life

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

Overcoverage; a merge is undesirable as there is already a terse embedded list at University of North Dakota#Greek life. VQuakr (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

        • Keep There is no other source on the web that has a complete coverage of the greek life history at the University of North Dakota. There are numerous other pages for school and greek life. See: List of Fraternities and Sororities at the University of Minnesota Greenwine (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is almost totally unsourced. I don't see any way this could be considered encyclopedic. Colleges have fraternities. There's not much that can be said about frat life at one college that's not equally true about frat life at most other colleges. On top of that, there appears to be serious copyright issues; I see whole sentences lifted verbatim from other web sites. There's a possibility this could be re-framed as List of greek organizations at Univiersity of North Dakota. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 5 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. Since this was a contentious AfD, let me expand on my rationale a little bit. The fact that the subject meets the threshold set by WP:PROF is not in dispute: additionally, several editors have examined the citation record in more detail, and argued that this person has had a significant impact in their field. The delete arguments center on the lack of reliably cited information, and on the promotional nature of the article. The promotional aspect is a legitimate concern, but it has been addressed during the AfD, largely thanks to the work of Jytdog. There is clearly enough information for a neutral stub, and since notability has been established, there remains no policy-based argument for deletion. Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Montazeri

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The sources in the article are written by the subject, and searching mostly gives sources for the unrelated person Hussein-Ali Montazeri. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there are 11466 sources about his work on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
by "GS" I assume you mean "Google scholar" and if so, what you wrote is meaningless and i am sorry to say incompetent.Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict) That's uncalled for. Maybe you misunderstood what Xxanthippe was saying? Each of the papers that cite Montazeri are independent reliable sources that discuss his work, at least in a small way. Google Scholar (GS) gives us a good estimate of how many there are: 11466. Clearly then, there are plenty of sources for writing about Montazeri's work, even if we don't have many sources about him. Making this assessment is exactly why WP:PROF exists – and I can assure you that everybody in this discussion, being regulars at academic AfDs, has "actually read" the guideline. There is also the fact that it would be very unusual for an academic of Montazeri's standing not to have been the subject of biographical publications in his own country, although unfortunately nobody with the language skills to verify that is available. In other words, the current article may not be well written or well sourced, but sources are definitely available, so we can get there eventually. – Joe (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, Google scholar does not separately count citations. Also incompetent. Please read Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers and also Google_Scholar#Limitations_and_criticism. It includes lots of garbage and dupes and is game-able. The raw number is meaningless.Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The more conservative citation metrics reported by Scopus (5484, h-index 41) and Web of Science (1776, h-index 20) also show that the subject is a highly-cited researcher. In my mind there's no doubt that he has made a significant impact in his field, passing WP:PROF#C1, and you haven't really offered an argument to the contrary, only repeatedly attacked our competence. – Joe (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at a more reasonable citation source. With regard to the putative lack of reason from my side, I said that there are insufficient sources about this person to create a well-sourced NPOV article about him. Which you have not addressed. Instead of actually working on the article you think is keep-able, you are wasting time making checkbox arguments that really don't mean anything, exactly per PROF. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And as I and others have mentioned multiple times above and below, WP:PROF does not require sources about a person. Sources about their work are sufficient to write a basic academic biography. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Prof gives a useful guide to evaluating the notability of academics/scholars/researchers. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
That has nothing to do with what I wrote, and additionally no guideline including PROF offers an automatic green light. We need to be able to write an NPOV, well sourced encyclopedia article. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog Your approach to Wikipedia editing can be seen on your user page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I describe it there: User:Jytdog. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that your views on Wikipedia editing are outside consensus. It might be better get your views agreed to on policy pages before attempting to impose them on individual AfDs. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • I went over the article carefully and removed a boatload of unsourced promotional content like:
    • "Since his graduation from University of Glasgow, he has introduced the topic to the Iranian academic community and developed several internationally known instruments for measuring health and patient-reported outcome in Iran. He is the pioneer of this topic in Iran and is a well-recognized scientist internationally for his works in this field."
    • "Montazeri is among few investigators who for the first time proved that health-related quality of life is a prognostic factor for cancer survival."
    • "Montazeri made a substantial contribution to breast cancer prevention in Iran."
    • "(his publications) are considered an asset for the country. He has published more than any investigator on breast cancer in Iran."
      • Let me just repeat that one again: "(his publications) are considered an asset for the country. " (????)
    • "His bibliographic review of the literature on the quality of life in breast cancer patients from 1974 to 2007 is one of the most comprehensive existing piece of evidence that covers all aspects of breast cancer treatment and quality of life."
I looked for independent sources about him and found none - i used his linkedin profile and CV to be able to write something but these are both SPS. I did find that someone posted an identical article on another wiki, here. There appears to be a full-court promotional press going on for this guy.
The article as it stands is SPS + a description of a few of his papers. This is completely invalid; a pubmed search shows he has 308 papers. The papers that are described in the article now appear to be randomly chosen; shall we describe all 308? If not, what is the basis for choosing these? ack.
Again there are insufficient secondary sources about him with which to generate an NPOV, well-sourced article. This is Wikipedia 101 stuff. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but this is all FUD. Deletion is not cleanup: promotional content can be salvaged, which you have just shown yourself. 99% of academics don't have enough sources about them to pass the WP:GNG, because sadly we live in a society that prefers to spend its ink on chronicling the lives of "celebrities" of varying levels of achievement and not people who make an enduring, historically significant contribution to the sum of human knowledge. This is why we have WP:PROF as an alternative to the GNG: it allows us to assess whether a person is notable on the basis of what people have written about their work. In my experience, if someone passes WP:PROF it is always possible to write a decent article based on a combination of things like faculty profiles (which are not independent, but are widely accepted to be reliable sources for uncontroversial biographical details like where a person went to school) and citations to scholarly papers that cite/discuss their work. You may not like that WP:PROF is an alternative to the GNG, but that is very clearly the long-standing consensus, which isn't going to be overturned in a single AfD. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say that a BLP with a GS h-index of 54 is "Too soon"? How big would it have to be to satisfy you that it was not "Too soon"? I note that promotional material has been removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
WP is not some directory where meeting some criteria gets you "in". (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY) In other words, there is no such thing as automatic notability; there have to actually be independent reliable sources with which to build an actual article. We have to write articles. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the raw number of citations does not show influence on the profession, and neither does the h index. What shows an influence in the subject is highly cited papers, not the total, not the average. No amount of low quality or mediocre work gives influence,only really important work will do it. And even an isolated single highly cited paper does not necessarily show influential work, because the person might have been a junior author as a student. There is no mechanical way of judging citations. And as far as absolute numbers go, it's entirely field dependent. a paper with 50 citations is important in mathematics, and trivial in biomedicine. It's also chronology-dependent: a paper with 100 citations in biomedicine was very significant indeed 40 years ago, but considerably less significant now. The only way an argument based on them can be valid is if it represents an intelligent summary of the citation record.
there have, btw, been several studies of the relation of GS counts to WOS and Scopus, and they have all shown that in most fields, the GS figure is twice the others, but the pattern is otherwise the same. WOS remains the gold standard in fields where it applies, but GS is an adequate surrogate. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In this particular case, examining the citation and the papers, he is the senior author of several important surveys which have been widely cited: 714, 515, 375, 299, 247, 263, 256, (25 papers with over 100 citations each) This is enough to show that he is an expert in his primary field, which is cancer epidemiology in Iran, and to a considerable extent the broader field of Iran epidemiology. The current version, thanks to the excellent editing of Jytdog, is no longer promotional -- it was a matter of removing adjectives and evaluative statements--the facts speak for themselves in showing notability , as they ought to. Thew point of WP:PROF is that secondary information about his work is unnecessary as long as the properly analyzed statistics show the notability . WP:PROF is not a supplement to the GNG, and not a matter of presumed notability -- it's explictly an alternative. True, among the many papers cited it we could find 3rd party evaluations of the work--this would add to the article, but it isn't necessary in order to keep it. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So interesting. This "article" is a piece of shit even after my efforts; all i did was polish a turd. There is nothing we can say about this person, as we have no sources about him to summarize. I do not understand the !keep votes, at all. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[20] Xxanthippe (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I understand the arguments being made to !keep; I think they are the corrupt product of a walled garden. They are out of sync with how WP works, overall. Jytdog (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What walled garden is this? Who or what is corrupt? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
You aren't listening and I am not going to clutter this up further. Other folks will weigh in with time. Jytdog (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're selling yourself short, the current article is a perfectly acceptable start-class biography that can hopefully be expanded in the future with access to Farsi sources. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see public health as a "significant subdiscipline". PROF#C1 states "For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, Drosophila genetics are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects." Public health is not cancer research but rather the application of medicine to large populations. The titles (e.g., "Does knowledge of cancer diagnosis affect quality of life", "Cancer disclosure", "... communication with cancer patients") cited in the article do not suggest broad significance but do suggest a narrow slice (subsubdiscipline) of public health. The focus is neither epidemiology nor cancer mechanisms. When I read the article I thought the argument would be PROF#C8, but there are no claims here that the journals are major in their field. The person is significant in his field, but the field is too narrow. Glrx (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Public health not a "significant subdiscipline"? I can find at least eleven Wikipedia articles that begin with the words"Public health". It's not a subdiscipline but a major discipline of crucial importance to populations throughout the world. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
It's always difficult to judge by incoming links, because sometimes they really are put there by a promotional campaign. But in de-orphaning the article today I found that (despite the language barrier) we already had two references to his publications, from General Health Questionnaire and from Cancer (not a significant subdiscipline??!?). The GHQ one appears to have been added as part of the initial creation of the article and the Cancer one was added in 2011 (diff); neither editor who added them seems to have any connection to Montazeri nor to be anything other than a good-faith Wikipedia contributor. So I think Jytdog owes those two editors an apology. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that public health is a subdiscipline of medicine, but it does not seem to meet the notion of PROF#C1. The county public health doctor is the guy who imposes quarantines, makes sure the water supply is good, and shuts down the bad restaurants. The subject of this article seems to focus not on DGG's cancer epidemiology (looking for new cancer agents or genes), but rather questionaires, patient impact, bedside manner, and the merits of self-screening. Yes, those things need study, but the focus is narrow. That's why I quoted some of his paper titles.
The given links do not strengthen the case. Going to General Health Questionnaire (an article of two short paragraphs about a psychiatric evaluation questionaire) shows that he was involved in the Persian translation of the GHQ and its subsequent testing. None of the other cited authors are WL'd. Going to Cancer finds "Montazeri, A (December 2009). "Quality of life data as prognostic indicators of survival in cancer patients: an overview of the literature from 1982 to 2008". Health Qual Life Outcomes. 7: 102. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-7-102. PMC 2805623. PMID 20030832." Neither the paper title nor the journal title instills confidence in WP:N. The reference is used to support the statement that patients who report higher quality of life tend to live longer. Sounds like an expected result. The guy is doing what scientists are supposed to do, but where is the evidence that he has had a significant impact on a significant subdiscipline of medicine? That impact should be more than translating questionnaires and checking the reliability of answers.
Currently, the article says he published some papers and uses citations to those papers as sources. That does not show the significance of the papers. Glrx (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of the papers is indicated by the number of times they have been cited by other scientists. In this case, rather a lot. If a paper is insignificant, it doesn't get cited at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 20:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xxanthippe and GDD, this public health professional (and it's certainly a discipline) has published numerous widely-cited papers, which is certainly sufficient for the GNG. There is no reason for abuse to other editors, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 6 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rana P. Singh

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

Fails notability criteria under WP:PROF. Appears to be a resume posted by an affiliated researcher. Dunready (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Amitay Sadovsky

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

Appears to be the subject's CV. None of the article's "references" are independent. Fails WP:PROF/WP:GNG as there are no apparent reliable sources (at least, not online) that establish the subject's notability in general or as an academic. Brycehughes (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She clearly passes WP:CREATIVE by exhibiting in known museums and major galleries in Israel. The article definitely is copy paste of here CV and need significant rework and improvement, but no doubt she is notable. I am trying to remove CV look and promotional tone at least Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In order to meet WP:CREATIVE they need to either have a permanent exhibit or be a major part of the temporary display at a main stream museum. Since the article gives no indication that either is true, I do not believe they meet the minimum requirements. - GalatzTalk 14:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And she exhibited in mainstream museums, which is indicated in the article: Haifa Museum of Art, Janco Dada Museum in Ein Hod, The Artist House in Tel Aviv, Eretz Israel Museum, Ashdod Museum of Art. So, why delete? Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only part of WP:CREATIVE that I feel is applicable is #4 which states The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. (a) I see no significant monument, (b) which of those exhibits were significant they a substantial part of? I see no mention of that in the article, (c) I see no RS showing significant critical attention, (d) what are the permanent collections within a notable gallery or museum? Being as none of this has been clearly stated in the article I have no reason to believe any of it is true. - GalatzTalk 15:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This part says either - it does not require all of them to be satisfied. And you don't see this part in list of group and solo exhibitions? It's clearly there. Museums where she was part of group exhibitions and the solo exhibitions in the Open Museum. Also, I just noticed the The Ann and Ari Rosenblatt Prize for Visual Art, she received in 2016 makes her pass 4c as well as 4b Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing I've found is that her works are part of permanent collection of Janco Dada Museum in Ein Hod and Open Museum. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And one more - 2012 Ministry of Israeli Culture and Sports prize is the second most prestigious cultural award in Israel after Prize Israel. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 20:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that WP:ARTIST requires that they need to either have a permanent exhibit. That would be an extraordinary hurdle to overcome. As far as I'm concerned, 4b, 4c and 4d are met. Keep. Mduvekot (talk) 01:55, 6 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 merge to Occult. The article's subject is found to not be notable enough for its own standalone article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Occult science

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

Seems like a very broad subject, it might be able to grow into something, but I am not sure it can at this time. Might be better as a disambig. South Nashua (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I think there are sufficient sources to establish as notable some coverage of the use of the form and/or methods of science in occult circles. This seems like the right place to put that article. Western esotericism and related articles are probably adequate to cover it for Western subjects specifically, and could subsume this article if they were our only concern, but there's also plenty of sources on the incorporation of scientific concepts in Eastern esotericism e.g. Onmyōdō. Provided the article sticks to discussion of the topic itself as much as possible, and doesn't digress into merely enumerating these different occult traditions, I think it's ultimately OK. Layzner (Talk) 18:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You might be right. I thought more about this and if I'm wrong, if it's possible to clean this up, I'll withdraw my nom. I don't have the expertise or confidence in this subject, otherwise I would have done that rather than beginning this discussion.However, I also think you're right in that this article can easily get a bit too crufty if it doesn't focus, that was my big concern. South Nashua (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The use of the term is intended to suggest that the occult is scientific, which makes it inherently WP:POV. Also, there is no reliably referenced content here; and any relevant content that comes up would be better placed in other articles, such as Western esotericism. -- 120.17.62.166 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with the above that it suggests that the occult is scientifically valid, which is both WP:POV and very problematic without any attempt at a citation to back it up. Attempted to find a source that might offer an opportunity for expansion but couldn't find anything remotely reputable with ease. PriceDL (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is not an attempt by a Wikipedian to legitimize occult ideas as scientific; this is a subject called "occult science". If it's unscientific, pseudoscientific, etc. (and it is) then we can say as much, but that's irrelevant to its notability. Rudolf Steiner and Helena Blavatsky have written extensively about this idea, and, as far as I know, not in very dissimilar ways. I'm not so sure the term is used in the same way consistently elsewhere, however, such that it's practical to have a stand-alone article. There have been plenty of attempts to reconcile science and the occult, and plenty of scientific concepts have historical connections to occult ideas, but the question is whether there is a distinct concept "occult science". I think that there is, but I don't feel confident weighing in in that way. If we're answering about whether there's "significant coverage" of something called "occult science", the answer is clearly yes, but it's not that simple. I also don't see that there's a whole lot of content worth hanging onto here. I mainly wanted to push back against the crux of the previous two !votes. Pinging Midnightblueowl, who may have some knowledge about this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm happy to accept that it may be notable, however I don't believe it should exist with its current text without sufficient citations. As I mentioned, I did try to find one and if I had been successful probably would have voted as a weak keep. If citations are not provided, the article should probably be wiped blank, in which case why keep it? PriceDL (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the term "occult sciences" is one that has had significant usage within western esotericism and there will certainly be academic sources that discuss said usage. On that basis, there is grounds for this article to be kept. However, the article is currently in a shockingly bad state, so there is a case for deletion at this juncture with the proviso that it can be re-created in future when someone with the time and attention to use those academic sources can do so. On balance I'd probably go with a weak keep. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Midnightblueowl. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by way of WP:TNT. I have no objection to a better article being written later but this is not that article. Orrrrrr possibly merge and redirect to a section in Western esotericism. If we get enough WP:RS we can always split it back out at a later date. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He lectured profusely on topics such as reincarnation, hypnotism, occult science, Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, mystery centers of the middle ages, astral bodies, gnomes as life forms, angels, karma, Christian mysticism, how to see spiritual beings, modern initiation, Atlantis, Lemuria, etc. Steiner's sermons, setting out his occult teachings, were recorded by his disciples and published in more than 350 volumes. [emphasis added]
--David Tornheim (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 20:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: That's fine with me as long as "occult science" is truly a subset of "occult" and not something significantly different. I don't know enough about either subject to be sure. Has anyone seen anything in the WP:RS to say definitively one way or another about the relationship between the two subjects? I don't think of Rudolf Steiner as believing in the paranormal which is part of the definition of the occult. He seems to be more interested in mysticism and spirituality. It might, in fact, make more sense to merge it with Steiner and Anthroposophy or whatever we have on the Waldorf school curriculum. But I am not clear if his school has a kind of monopoly on the term or whether there are various definitions for it. In that case possibly multiple merges and redirects are in order. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest this article as a starting point. Layzner (Talk) 01:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Redirecting to Theosophy alone seems inappropriate given this article by Wouter Hanegraaff which does not mention theosophy or Rudolf Steiner at all. However, there is support to merge with occult which is acceptable to me. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Hanegraaff is a theosophist. And no i am not going to get into a big debate with you over that. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Hanegraaff is a theosophist"? Since when? I'm not quite sure that this is accurate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: Redirecting to Theosophy alone seems inappropriate given this article by Wouter Hanegraaff which does not mention theosophy or Rudolf Steiner at all. However, there is support to merge with occult which is acceptable to me. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
and we have this [25], so maybe just re-write as a page about the academic study of the occult. As it does appear to exist in that sense.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 2 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) 19:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajoo Engineers

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

Lacks sufficient independent coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Available sourcing consists of routine coverage, press releases, and directory entries. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Underunderground

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

I suspect that this is simply a hoax. In the best case, however, it's a little-known neologism that was used only in the context of Franklin's correspondence with Payne. Google has basically never heard of the term and also knows of nobody under the name "Thomas Bookerville". Pichpich (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 4 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 23:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royal McLog

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

Declined for speedy deletion. Renominating it for AfD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Unambiguous advertising. No references in article and a search of Google News finds no references either. As per Talk page, article is an autobiography. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:10, 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) 23:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dziffa Akua Ametam

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

Fails GNG. A thorough search for RS fails to uncover any substantial and sustained coverage other than the non-RS mentions in article. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW and withdrawal by OP. — JFG talk 08:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2020

AfDs for this article:
United States presidential election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from when the election will take place and eligibility bits, this article is full of unconfirmed speculation; nobody has even officially announced they'll be running for office that year, and that won't happen until at least 2018. There's nothing truly solid to work with at the moment and there won't be for another year at earliest. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Calling this WP:SOFTDELETE due to the limited discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IIT Schools of Management

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

There is no evidence this exists as am organization or a group. As such it fails WP:GNG. As a list we already have List of MBA schools in India. Muhandes (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Bridwell

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

Fails notability guidelines per WP:AUTHOR. Works cited (besides a few articles in minor magazines) are a self-published magazine and a self-published novel. Dunready (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the coverage is the local news coverage of an aspiring writer that does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above I agree its not noteworthy enough. Only local news about aspiring writer. I also see that the user that created the page has only had edits regarding this page. It seems like they have a connection to person in article. They also tried to remove the template for this discussion. Reb1981 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 3 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) 19:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Aqeeq Baba

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

Declined a test-page speedy, but a good faith search is not showing independent, reliable sources for notability. Normally I'd just speedy this, but given that he lived almost 700 years ago and sources may not be in English, I think more eyes are needed on this. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, but unopposed to re-creation by somebody able to write in an encyclopedic and non-hagiographic (read: peacocky) way. Extensive sockpuppetry has been confirmed, so I feel uncomfortable keeping this page and so, in a way, condoning the sockpuppeteer's actions. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Even though I reported the creator of this article at SPI and am trying to stop his spamming of Wikipedia, there is no doubt that a mausoleum (dargah) of such a person exists in Uch Sharif, Pakistan where it is a local centre of pilgrimage. Google image search for "Dargah Shah Aqeeq" returns a handful of photographs from various sources while Geo TV, one of the largest TV channels in Pakistan, aired a documentary on the place in 2013 [26]. As to the historical person of Shah Aqeeq Baba, most what is in the article is based on local legends, so perhaps some serious trimming and tagging is needed, but hey, with good copyediting Wikipedia handles such stuff pretty nicely. The only doubt I have is whether not to move this article to Shah Aqeeq mausoleum, describing the place based on the Geo TV material, and keep is under WP:NGEO. The person of Shah Aqeeq could be then presented in the context of the place. — kashmiri TALK 15:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak deleteWeak keep - I agree that Shah Aqeeq Baba is not a hoax (I don't know how much of his story is fictional, but fiction!=hoax). However, the Geo TV report and the link in the article to a page on the rightfulreligion blog is talking about a shrine in the town of Shah Aqeeq in Thatta District in Sindh (south Pakistan, not far from Karachi). Uch Sharif, where the individual is from, is in the Punjab (north-east Pakistan, not far from Multan). I skipped around, but the Geo TV report didn't seem to talk much about the person. Given that no page for the town of Shah Aqeeq exists, I think such an article should be created as a new article (I don't think the history or content of this article would be valuable in such an article). My feeling is that the mausoleum would go as a section in a page on the village. I'm not sure if Shah Aqeeq Baba is a useful redirect to this page; the character, Shah Aqeeq Baba, is more closely associated with Uch (for instance, the article mentions Jalaluddin Surkh-Posh Bukhari), and a redirect to a town named after him in Sindh seems odd, but maybe I'm wrong. All that said, I would !vote keep to an article about this individual if there were a reliable source about him (or even if the Geo TV article does talk in some depth about him [if so, can you give the time in the show that it occurs in the citation]), but I can't find one. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the first link provided by HyperGaruda, "Pakistan tourism directory, '86", my understanding is that the word "Urs" refers to a celebration of the anniversary of death, which means that while the first link you've given refers in part to the town of Shah Aqeeq, it is a calendar of events giving the date of a holiday in honor of the person. It is hard to be sure when using snippets, but that suggests evidence that the individual is notable (and certainly the physical artifact suggests notability, as Kashmiri says).
Regarding the second link, "Accessions List, South Asia, Volume 7, Issues 1-6", I see more of the snippet at the link [27], telling me that the book seems to have been written by Habibu Sindhu (born in 1957), published in 1986 by Soshal Vailfe'ar Anjuman-i-Ghulaman-i-Mustafa in Cuhar Jamali (the society: Anjuman-i-Ghulaman-i-Mustafa [also Anjuman-e-Ghulaman-e-Mustafa] is not clearly unreliable, I'm not sure how Wikipedia would handle it though).
Further, the page at righfulreligion has been expanded, and new sources have been added there, particularly this one (which is really about the town and shrine) from BBC News Urdu: [28]. I have tried to develop the article using these sources. There have also been a number of video news reports linked below and at the rightfulreligion blog about the town and shrine, but these do not seem to add anything more about Shah Aqeeb the individual. I continue to think it would be fine to create a page about the town with a section about the shrine.
When Hammadsaeed's block expires, perhaps they will be able to comment on the source of the rest of the material (although it was recommended in their block they keep their editing on this page to a minimum). In the meantime, I changing my vote weak keep for a limited article about the individual (which can be expanded if sourced) including only the sourced material - I think the stuff taged c-n can/should be removed. I think having an independent biography (any biography written hundreds of years after an individual's death is at least somewhat independent, after all), a shrine, and a holiday recognized at the national level is enough for WP:ANYBIO #2. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is the WP:G5 policy, which to me seems to have a punitive aim. -HyperGaruda (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G5 does not apply directly to this page, since it was created before the creator started violating sockpuppetry rules and the resulting block. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:53, 2 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. Will userfy if someone wants to try to improve it. MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Movie Database

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

No significant, independent and reliable sources. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's a fledgling website competing with a massive commercial market leader (IMDb), so it's hardly going to command an international news following, is it, given it's a db that aggregates data used by non-mainstream smaller operations. The links given clearly summate it's presence regardless of this. Jimthing (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are admitting that it is too early for this article to have notability, and hence that it is only here to promote the website? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in my mouth, you know full well what is meant by such a comment, without being trite about it. Jimthing (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the same what landed this site on the blacklist:spam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jim - all of the references are clearly not WP:RS, I'm sure you know that. The only one is (The Guardian), does not mention the subject. I wasn't able to find anything at all when searching, but that may be attributable to the fairly generic title of the site. Do you have anything at all that would meet our criteria? Kuru (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the article history is a little complex. Travisbell wrote a fairly neutral userspace draft which he did not move to mainspace. It looks like it was copied, to some extent, by Jimthing into mainspace without attribution. Amortias then did a histmerge to set the attribution. Kuru (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes, the COI aside, he did write a very neutral draft. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm actually on Imdb and Tmdb and I find its more notable than most of the sites listed here including BMDb and Christian Film Database. If anything, it needs improvement and Travis Bell is the creator of the site but the article is very neutral and not at all promotional and its Alexa Ranking is way better than most listed in the category mentioned above. I'll put it on the same level as Douban (which i also contribute too) even though i do not understand a single word of mandarin or cantonese :P . The site has been mentioned in the media but because its non-commerical (like us), it gets a lesser mention than a site like, Imdb.COM so you can't really claim a site fails WP:WEBCRIT just because it does not promote itself well or at all.--Stemoc 02:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"it does not promote itself well or at all", you do realise that Travis Bell, the site owner, created the article himself, right? It indeed needs improvement, by addition of sources that show that it is notable enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse the owner of the site created it but was it promotion? does the site sell stuff?, does the site gain monetarily from being on wikipedia? does the owner of the site gain something from listing the site here? he could have paid someone to add an article here but he did it himself and it was indeed written well without a hint of it being promotional. I bet Jimmy Wales or Larry Sanger never edited the Wikipedia article either..oh wait!, Larry (the so-called co-founder of wikipedia) created the article of "his" project on "his" project (lol)..There are many many others like this (where the owner of a site or product created an article on the said product/site here) and as i said above, the article needs improvement and a few more source information/citings and yes the site was definitely not eligible for inclusion back in 2008, it is now...Notability is gained through time and I can honestly say, compared to other similar articles linked above in that other category, the site is indeed notable.--Stemoc 04:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stemoc: You mentioned "the site has been mentioned in the media", could you link to some of those mentions? As noted above, I'm simply coming up blank in searches, but that may be due to the site's common name. Kuru (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stemoc, promotion can be achieved whether there is a product being sold or not. Non-profit groups can still promote. An individual can promote him/herself for the purpose of gaining attention. And those of us who have been alive long enough know that there have been many free internet services that achieved multi-million dollar appraisals, so the lack of a specific product for sale does not mean that promotion was not occurring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not gained through time or Alexa rating. Notability is gained through being noted in reliable sources, and so far this article has none. - MrOllie (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As noted in my requests, I can't find any reliable sourcing. The references given in the article now are terrible: forum posts, directories, and a reddit discussion? The BBC and Guardian refs are to support the claim that the IMDB is dropping its forums, and do nto mention TMDB at all. I wasn't able to find anything else, and queries above were not answered. I don't see how this meets WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, and no policy based argument has been made. I'm glad that some people like the site; it is a nice endeavor. Kuru (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I gather a user's opinion is not worth a cent unless he has a certain status or privileges on this site. I was honestly thinking of contributing in the future, but if this is your general attitude towards new users I might have to reconsider. Also, you didn't even bother signing "your contribution". Vmavra (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No offense is intended, the SPA tag is standard in situations such as this one where external web forums are discussing an article's deletion. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still looks like an attempt to automatically belittle and discredit new users. No offense, @MrOllie: Vmavra (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vmavra: 'such trivialities' .. Vmavra, we have policies and guidelines that guide us to decide what is notable enough for inclusion. People saying that they are daily users is not enough. A bar has to be put somewhere, and our bar is that significant, reliable, independent sources must have noticed the existence and written about the subject. People with close contact with the owners of the site have not been able to provide us with those, nor have others who have commented here. The subject is not notable (yet). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft in the hope that additional references will become available. It's not a viable article at present--the references are simply too weak. Some are not in reliable sources, and others don't talk about the db at all. (And we have always defined "promotion" to mean advocacy ,commercial or non commercial, or any thing at all, even free projects) DGG ( talk ) 08:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny, there's German and Portuguese WP articles for TMDb, but potentially none for English-language speakers. While we understand the sources argument, I think some probation period is justifiable, as clearly the site exists and there are at least direct links to it that show it exists, its history/stats, and what it does. Jimthing (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITEXISTS. Jim, one of the other editors at TMDB hit the nail on the head: "Rather than a specific focus on SEO, it would probably be best to just keep focusing on improving the quality of data." At this point, more attempts at promotion are likely to be counterproductive, as will works of "commissioned" PR. If you're really trying to improve the site, focus inward and let the recognition happen organically. Kuru (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It sounds really interesting, and the flap over IMDB suddenly deleting their comments raises the ever-interesting censorship issue. These days, anything having to do with the rich of powerful keeping anyone else from having their say is in the headlines (fake news, anybody?). I can help repair the article, and if there's a rush (i.e., a deadline, then move it into userspace). Check out my user page for a few dozen of the hundreds of article I've started - and then had to rescue from the deletionists. Anything can be fixed. Don't delete it, unless editing has ceased and everyone's simply given up on whipping it into shape. Thanks for listening. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can help repair the article – please do go ahead and edit away. Any further editing is welcomed. Jimthing (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimthing: You have already voted keep once so you need to strike through this post. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Messed up that ping so post this one @Jimthing:. MarnetteD|Talk 01:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been relisted, so not the same AfD. Jimthing (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has been listed at other wikiprojects not relisted. At least the closing admin will be aware of that you voted twice. MarnetteD|Talk 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." Jimthing (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEBCRIT. There does not seem to be any significant coverage in reliable sources so the only other criteria that can potentially mitigate its existence is if it has received independent recognition per WP:WEBCRIT. Also, please note that it is policy bases rationales that count, not votes. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. It is possible that it will meet that criteria one day. If that happens it can be recreated. MarnetteD|Talk 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with regret. I want an open competitor to IMDb, and wish TMDB success; but I don't see this fledgling website as getting sufficient coverage to meet Wikipedia notability requirements. I hope to see the site is successful, and therefore gets coverage and merits an article, but it's too soon. TJRC (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft so this article can continue to be worked on as independent, significant, and reliable sources become available. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP - there is some good, eventually source-able, content in this article which could be developed and improved. Also, there is not currently consensus on either side of this discussion, which has already continued for an extended period. - tucoxn\talk 17:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add to my previous comments. Sure, maybe a lack of high-end sources in relation to its use purely as a website a la IMDb-type usage, but the information that is gathered via the site does nonetheless form a major component as part of both media management software (e.g. Plex, Kodi, et al.), and as a component of other online sites data (e.g. Letterboxd et al.) and software management (themoviedb.org/apps ). There are a great many things both on and off WP that won't/haven't received massive press attention, because they are technical things that do not necessarily make for great reporting subject matter. To reiterate, it's been around a decent amount of time, since 2008, and has been running successfully ever since, as evidenced by its continued usage on said other platforms for their data usage. And there are quotes in there from some of these sites, evidencing its existence and usage as a data source. Jimthing (talk) 01:14, 11 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. Unlike with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016, there are no editors here advocating deletion. Since Cunard makes a good point (without opposition) that the proposed merge target is not suitable (or rather a merge at all is not the correct way to go), there is no consensus whether to merge at all and if so, where to. But a merge can be discussed at any time and this AfD does not create a precedent to keep this article in the current form. SoWhy 10:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008

Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This speech is not notable on its own. The election victory was notable. There is incredibly little in this article in terms of actual analysis of what was said, or that wouldn't be better off discussed at the appropriate articles, such as United States presidential election, 2008 and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016 for a comparable discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016 and Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 or delete both or redirect both, because both have approximately the same amount of WP:RS and seem of equal significance/insignificance. I think it would make us look unfairly biased to keep one and not the other. I am open to changing my mind if I can be convinced the Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 was more significant than this one. I personally don't think either speech was significant or worth the time it takes to listen to, but we have to decide based on the WP:RS and not our own opinions, so I'm going more with the comparable WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of significance: Richard Nixon's "I am not a Crook" speech has to be more significant, and we do not have an article on that. We do have Richard_Nixon's_resignation_speech. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand why this is even an issue. There are 25 sources on the article, most of them from top news sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, ABC, CNN, and so on. It was obviously covered everywhere, and the fact that this was the first time a person of African descent had been elected the leader of the US (or, indeed, any major majority-white nation) is significant. Perhaps the article doesn't have in-depth analysis, but why does it need to? It covers what was deemed worth reporting at the time, such as the references made and the context. When the lack of articles for other speeches is brought up, it just makes me think that, yeah, there should be a page for the "I am not a crook" speech and such. Brettalan (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is everyone urging for deletion so old (or so young) that they can't recall the widespread, ongoing coverage? Bearian (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the speech received widespread coverage, so it meets notability criteria. The article is a non-stub, with 24 cited references from good quality sources. This article cannot be merged without losing material. Maintaining a low-level detailed article on the speech as well as higher-level articles on the 2008 election and Obama's speeches is in keep with Wikipedia's summary style. I don't see a rationale for deletion other than deletion for deletion's sake.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Berry, Mary Frances; Gottheimer, Josh (2010). Power in Words: The Stories Behind Barack Obama's Speeches, from the State House to the White House. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 080700104X. Retrieved 2017-03-05.

      The book notes:

      When CNN flashed the news over giant video screens in Grant Park, the crowd erupted in cheers. A television camera caught a glimpse of Oprah Winfrey and Jesse Jackson; both had tears running down their cheeks. Within minutes, at around eleven, Obama received congratulatory calls from Senator McCain and President George W. Bush. In the New York Times, Adam Nagourney wrote, "People rolled spontaneously into the streets to celebrate what many described as ... a new era in a country where just 143 years ago, Mr. Obama, a black man, could have been owned as a slave." He called Obama a "phenomenon" and referred to his election as "a national catharsis".

      Obama's acceptance speech was a stem-winder. The Obama writers had outdone themselves—and they'd done it as a team. Favreau penned the first half, and the entire group, including Adam Frankel, Sarah Hurwitz, and Ben Rhodes, wrote the remainder together.

      It was a sober statement. Given the grave economic crisis, Obama did not want pageantry and bombast. He didn't want to spend those sacred minutes crowing. So, despite the evening's $2 million price tag, there were no fireworks, as some had hoped for, and no recount of the landslide. Instead, Obama framed the moment and discussed its significance. He reached out to those who hadn't voted for him—and let them know that he would be their president, too. Obama knew that would be the key to his success as commander in chief; he was now the president of all Americans.

      Obama declared, "It's been a long time coming, but ... change has come to America"—an allusion to the Sam Cooke song "A Change Is Gonna Come." He spoke about Ann Nixon Cooper, a 106-year-old African American woman, who voted that day in Atlanta, as representative of that change. In her lifetime, Cooper had seen Pearl Harbor and Selma, but she never thought she'd see a black president. Just minutes before Obama declared victory, Favreau hid underneath his desk to find a quiet spot and called Cooper. She couldn't believe her ears when he told her that the president-elect would talk about her experience in his victory speech. Change had come.

      Obama also spoke of the travails ahead, acknowledging the onerous challenges he was inheriting. Too many Americans had lost their jobs, their savings, and their homes; millions more were without health care. Brave soldiers were risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama knew that "our union [could] be perfected." But it wouldn't be easy. Echoing Martin Luther King's "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech, Obama insisted, "The road ahead will be long, our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year, or even in one term—but America, I have never been more helpful than I am tonight that we will get there."

    2. Alter, Jonathan (2010). The Promise: President Obama, Year One. New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 38–39. ISBN 1439154082. Retrieved 2017-03-05.

      The book notes:

      It was time to give his speech. Barack Obama summoned Axelrod, who jogged to catch up to him in the tunnel as he strode toward the stage. "I just wanted you to know," Obama said, "there was a good fireworks display planned, but I killed it. Too frivolous for the times."

      Within minutes he and his family stepped forward, separated from the entire world by two-inch-thick bullet-proof glass. He began by savoring the historic "defining moment":

      If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founds is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. ...

      It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

      But he made a point of emphasizing the long struggle to come:

      I know you didn't just do this to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime—two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.

      Out in Grant Park 250,000 people were more interested in the history than the challenges ahead. They celebrated with no arrests, which was almost unheard-of on festive occasions in the city. For older Chicagoans the location had a special resonance. In 1968 police had clubbed antiwar demonstrators across Michigan Avenue from the Conrad Hilton Hotel, the same area of Grant Park where Obama now gave his victory speech. The violence at that year's Democratic National Convention split the Democratic Party and helped elect Richard Nixon, who came to personify an ugly chapter in the American story. Forty years later the party's wounds seemed finally healed and some of Chicago's tortured racial history joyously transcended, at least for one night. Retired cops and long-ago hippies and their children and grandchildren all gathered in the park, this time on the same side of the barricades.

    3. Maxon, Seth; Stahl, Jeremy (2017-01-10). ""Hell Yes, I Remember That Moment". In 2008, hundreds of thousands gathered in Chicago's Grant Park for Barack Obama's victory speech. Here's how a few of them felt about Obama then, and feel about America today". Slate. Archived from the original on 2017-03-05. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
    4. Rahman-Jones, Imran (2016-11-09). "Trump v Obama: How their victory speeches compare". BBC. Archived from the original on 2017-03-05. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
    5. Snowdon, Kathryn (2016-11-09). "Barack Obama And Donald Trump Acceptance Speeches Seen Side-By-Side, Eight Years Apart". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2017-03-05. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, in my opinion, an undisputedly notable, speech of the first African American President's election victory. Sources do in fact highlight this as a specific speech. It is independently notable of his election campaign. The speech has been analyzed by academics and is therefore notable as well. Valoem talk contrib 19:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, I and others have disputed that, so it's not "undisputed". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is my opinion. AfD votes are opinions based on the guidelines created to determine whether or not a subject is notable for independent coverage. I believe speeches which have been analyzed by linguists and academics are notable. When specific segments of a speech are compared to others it may by notable. I believe that the first victory speech of the first African American president should be clearly notable for independent coverage. I hope that clarifies any misunderstanding. Valoem talk contrib 20:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:05, 13 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) 19:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chauhar

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

Fails WP:NFILM: Copy of recently deleted article and no better sources to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Abdul-Aleem

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

Abdul-Aleem is a basketball player who does not appear to meet the inclusion criteria for basketball players and does not pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Abbas

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

Abbas appeared in a song contest, where he came no where near winning. He has done some touring, but does not seem to meet any inclusion criteria for musicians. The article has been marked as needing additional sources to show notability since December 2012. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shehzad Ghias Shaikh

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

After cleaning up and removing unreliable references, I found there is nothing in the cited references that could make the subject notable enough to warrant an entry on Wikipedia. The subject recived some press coverage and most of the cited references merely quote him. The subject clearly fail to meet Wikipedia's bio criteria so I nominate it for deletion. Note: the article itself was created and expanded by the subject himself. Saqib (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all sources merely quote his name. --Saqib (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do the sources found establish notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Wiki-Coffee: Regarding "...landed him temporary media attention", note the dates I have added to the sources below, denoting how the subject has received ongoing coverage, rather than "temporary" coverage.
Regarding "...no evidence in this article so far", see WP:NEXIST; notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Articles do not pass or not pass notability guidelines, subjects and topics do. North America1000 22:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  • @Northamerica1000: Wow your name to ping is a type-full. Of course, the existence of sources can substantiate the existence of a person. News sources are great for finding out what people do and do not do because they make money from printing about it. The assertion that simply because you are mentioned or written about externally from Wikipedia means that this on its own creates notability is something I do not agree with. The key elements to this article seem to be statements of two things. Firstly that the subject of the article is a comedian in Pakistan. Secondly that the comedian has received media coverage. Neither of those two components in of themselves appear to establish notability. Summarily, the articles core information to the reader attests that this is a man who is a comedian and has media coverage. Neither being a comedian or receiving news coverage seems to demonstrate notability of a living person in my mind. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 22:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presence of media coverage about subjects is a long-term, widespread norm on Wikipedia to establish notability. If you don't agree with notability guidelines, it comes across that you're basing notability on subjective, personal criteria. North America1000 22:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Northamerica1000: I dispute your assertion that Wikipedia's guidelines and or policies stipulate that the notability of a living person can be determined solely on news coverage. One would first have to ascertain the credibility and objectivity of the news sources themselves. Moreover, you would have to move to assess the WP:NPOV of news coverage, which is very rarely the N part of POV. Summarily, basing the notion of notability for a living person on News coverage is not only dangerous but is factually erroneous. This gives control to News outlets so that they may establish a persons notability merely on the basis of writing about that person rather than having a burden of proof on them to credibly establish notability. In my opinion, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Not News. Merely being referenced by news agencies does not solely establish notability, it establishes coverage. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000:
Comparison of claims for notability between two articles
Louis C.K. Shehzad Ghias Shaikh
Is a comedian Is a comedian
Has written for famous and notable comedians Has news coverage which validates he is a comedian
Starred and written notable works
Won notable awards
Ranked in the top 50 best stand up comedians

→ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 10:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, as a comedian Shaikh's 'works' are his jokes, if these have been discussed/analysed by the newspaper articles then he is notable under WP:CREATIVE ie. "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 16:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only three editors have expressed an opinion either way, so far. Let's hear from more people!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:42, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eiko Shimamiya

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

Sourced to a music school's webpage where she is apparently a teacher, a blog, her Twitter, the webpage of her production group, and Anime New Network. WP:BEFORE turns up other blogs, music lyrics and download sites, and social media. No WP:RS coverage. Does not pass WP:GNG. Claimed to have had 1 song reach #39 in Oricon weekly, which is not enough to justify on WP:NMUSIC grounds. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:09, 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) 23:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 2 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Mariana Islands earthquake

2007 Mariana Islands earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:

  • Low intensity – IV (Light)
  • No injuries or deaths
  • Minimal coverage from the scientific community (not finding any dedicated papers)
  • Not listed on the NGDC's significant earthquake database
  • Fails multiple aspects of WP:EVENT
  • No lasting effects
  • No depth of coverage

There are destructive events in Guam, and we do have one article, but this one doesn't quite make the cut. It also does not qualify to be on the list so redirecting is not an option. The USGS entry for the event tells us that it happened and that the intensity was IV (Light) but nothing more. This was a felt event only:

Dawnseeker2000 16:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 2 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) 19:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Rotan

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

Not enough sources to pas GNG and no showing of pasing any of the notability requirements for musicians. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage seems to be either passing references (Such as [31]) or brief coverage in context of the TV program [32]. Quite a few of the references are either unreliable (such as ImDb) or videos of the show such as [33] or tabloidy very brief q&a such as [34],[35] (which are not useful for GNG). More importantly, the only somewhat substantial content [36] is in Romerikes Blad, which is a local paper (and so are most of the other sources). I am also unable to verify any other claim which could help satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. As of now, a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:38, 2 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) 19:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roma Acorn

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

Acorn lacks the coverage to pas the general notability guidlines. No clear passing of the music guidelines either John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I managed to find only 1 source which has a brief writeup about the subject. But nothing substantial. Apart from this, there seems to be literally no coverage even if I searching using both the names. The article on the Russian Wikipedia is badly sourced as well, which doesn't inspire confidence in me. As this is a BLP, I would say it is prudent to delete it and let it be recreated if someone can bring sources in the future. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:45, 2 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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intertrust Technologies Corporation

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

Article was earlier speedy deleted after a normal AfD procedure (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intertrust Technologies Corporation. I am not convinced that the present moved-back-without-WP:REFUND-request article is neutral in style and tone. So I request the opinions of others. The Banner talk 19:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep after investing much effort to save it by adding independent sources and neutral tone. It would help if the nominator would elaborate which side they think the article errs: is it too promotional of the company, or does mentioning a term like "patent troll", all the losses, and staff reductions make it too much of a complaint? As indicated in the talk page, the current incarnation of the article does not have any of the usual buzzwords and acronyms associated with promotional technology articles. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases can be used as sources, as long as the article paraphrases into neutral language. The use of independent sources is needed only to determine the notability of the subject. I tried to be clear about which were primary sources instead of trying to hide them. We can debate which of the other 29 non-press-release sources are truly independent. I would think for example Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, might be independent. W Nowicki (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources are better, conforn WP:RS. To me, using press releases signals lack of independent sources about the subject. The Banner talk 09:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are few articles (or mentions) about both InterTrust and Electronic Publishing Resources in InfoWorld and PC Mag magazines (I may provide direct links, but search via google books is easy). Sources like Forbes often have rather permissive publishing policy, big name doesn´t mean good source - must be judged case by case. Despite that, I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. W Nowicki (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. W Nowicki (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clear advertising sourced by mirrored advertising, which is violating our main policies alone, wherever published or whatever significance from other named people. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  A most interesting read for a dry topic, digital rights management.  This is a longstanding Silicon valley enterprise, and I loved the idea of the InfoWorld source from 1985.  I don't necessarily know how to interpret the results at Google scholar, but there are a lot of them.  Only complaint is I'd like to see citations on all of the BLPs in the infobox.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- a storied company, having gone through IPO etc and per improvements by W Nowicki. Article is not currently promotional in tone and is reasonably sourced. Separately, I've substantially reduced material cited to press releases: diff. I don't see a reason to delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 3 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. WP:G5 NeilN talk to me 17:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Modishians (Hollywood)

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

Recently created, unreferenced article that fails to credibly establish notability. Unable to find information on this work at imdb or even via a google search. Possible hoax AussieLegend (✉) 15:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Diamond (Journalist)

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

Fails WP:GNG and too soon, I've removed all the incorrectly sourced puffery and there's not much left, being the son of famous people doesn't make him notable. Theroadislong (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: additional opinions needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: DGG's comment still applies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 05:03, 13 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 22:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kranti Pratap Singh

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

Non-notable individual. Sources are solely prmary sources [37], Facebook [38], blogs [39], zines [40], and fanpages [41]. No inherent notability; WP:BEFORE searches in Googlenews [42], [43], and GBooks [44] establish no notability from third party, independent sources, so failing WP:GNG. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 13:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baymam-Bet

Baymam-Bet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page was redirected to Kosh-Eter, and that redirect subsequently nominated at RfD. The discussion did not reach agreement on whether this populated place verifiably exists, based on differing opinions about the reliability and appropriate weight to be given to sources, but did reach consensus that if it exists it should have an article. user:Markussep's post in that discussion is worth quoting here:

The first version of this article was only based on this website. There is no mention of a place called Baymam-Bet in the 2009 population census (if it existed, it would have been on page 220, Uzgen district, Salamaliksky a.o.), and there is no populated place with this or a similar name near the given location on this detailed map.

Tavix commented to the effect that this apparently formerly appeared on Google Maps, which they believe to be reliable, and so it may be a former populated place or formerly recognised name. BDD implies that the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency regard this as an existing place, and that they are a reliable source.

I have closed the RfD discussion as "restore article and send to AfD" as this is the venue most competent to decide the issues about whether the article should exist or not. As such this is a procedural nomination and I am neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources are found that this place exists. All we have so far is a GNS entry, whose coordinates point to a barren-looking place on the slope of a mountain. The fact that it previously featured on google maps is much more likely to indicate an error that has been fixed, rather than a place that existed until recently (otherwise, it would at least appear on the 1980s topographic map linked above). I've tried a google search for what I reckon are the possible Cyrillic spelling variants (Баймамбет, Баймам бет, Байман бет, Байманбет), but the only relevant thing to come up was a place called Baymanbet in a different part of the world [46]. – Uanfala (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with misspelling unless it can be proven the place exists. Simply redirecting to "nearest village" does not help our cause much, if the original place does not exist and therefore there is no "nearest village"... Other places should be likewise deleted but can await the outcome here. — Iadmc♫talk  21:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A requested move should be initiated as well. (non-admin closure) J947 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Max Spiers

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

So there appears to be a few problems with this article and they are:

  • WP:GNG is not met. Firstly, there is no assertion of notability. The key points of this article seem to merely state this person was a conspiracy theorist, which I would not consider makes a person notable on its own. There is coverage but not significant coverage of the topic.
  • WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is not news. Not only has a claim of significance not been made but there are no references other than media based ones.
  • Tabloid coverage alone does not substantiate the definition of significant coverage.
  • This is a death which is currently under investigation for criminal wrongdoing. The cause of death is undetermined and this article puts WP:UNDUE weight on the implied correlation between him being a conspiracy theorist and his death.
→ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 12:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC) [Self-Rescind of nomination by nominator.][reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 12:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 12:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 12:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 12:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 12:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 12:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or WP:Userify or Rename to Death of (after rewrite). (Remove the speedy as clearly controversial), at risk of tearing it down before it's built, but a mysterious death does not a notable topic make, so no assertion of notability. Express and Metro aren't really the quality of reporting needed to build a bio on such an murky conspiracy based topic where there's competing issues mental health vs conspiracy theories (BBC etc sources are but the notability is from the death). May be just a little WP:TOOSOON for some encyclopaedic perspective on his death which may need deeper research provided by books. Any such medical aspects need a higher level of sourcing per WP:MEDRS. Currently it's WP:NOTNEWS. Widefox; talk 15:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wiki-Coffee, I've contested the speedy, this needs to be discussed here as clearly controversial, so speedy A7 doesn't apply. Please revert yourself. Widefox; talk 09:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Widefox: Hey, I commented on your talk page about the adding of speedy :). Furthermore, The criterion for that speedy deletion tag is that the subject is “unremarkable.” I am not so sure if controversy equates to making something remarkable or not. I have no real views about this matter either way. While I could be persuaded his death might be cause for some sort of input into Wikipedia about it there is nothing indicating the subject is remarkable. The media picks up on people’s deaths all the time and I wouldn’t think this automatically makes one remarkable, notable or significant. I am also very hesitant to include content on Wikipedia that is solely based on tabloid or news articles. In the absence of any academic material on the subject matter it brings to issue the academic integrity of the content. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 10:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I have with the BBC video source is that it's typical BBC3-like light magazine coverage, e.g. [47] with every sentence including the title having question marks, it's at the lower casual end of their coverage and I would argue not a great source per WP:NEWSORG Human interest reporting. which is way short of that needed for MEDRS, or basing a whole bio. Widefox; talk 10:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A well-known figure in the UFO conspiracy world, as described by multiple reliable sources given in the article: the BBC, the Guardian and the Telegraph are top-echelon reliable sources. The coverage goes well beyond just reporting his death, including a ten minute BBC mini-documentary that covers his life in considerable detail. Failing meeting those notability criteria, I suggest Death of Max Spiers as another possible title for this article, as his death most certainly meets the GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Anome: I would be prepared to rescind my nomination for deletion if sources that are not tabloid news outlets could be identified which specifically support the subject of this articles notability. As it stands however, merely being reported about by the tabloid press is hardly enough to establish notability; With regards to the thing you have mentioned about him being well known in the conspiracy community, this has not been established by any non-tabloid sources. The academic integrity of this article is nil as there is not a single academic source and as an encyclopaedia, WP:NOTNEWS it doesn’t seem to me it should be filled with content simply because tabloids reported on it. Many people are in short-films on the BBC about an array of different issues (council tax complainers, EU Leave voters remain voters etc.) but that alone would be a very thin thing to base notability on. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 16:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you reason how it's notable? Widefox; talk 16:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC source isn't that reliable per guideline (see my comment above). Widefox; talk 16:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that perhaps that I’ve quoted too many policies without legitimising my arguments for why this article should be deleted, so I apologize for that.

I’d think that objectively speaking we should look at this matter as what qualifies for encyclopaedic content. In this case the subject of this article became noticed by the news for one event, that is his death, but otherwise he would be non-notable private individual. The assertion of credibility is that he was a “well known conspiracy theorist” but there is no academic evidence to suggest that he is a noteworthy conspiracy theorist. The other argument I would raise is that the focus of the sources is around the events surrounding his death and not the person in of itself. But even with this considered to say that a death specifically of this person is notable is at best a shallow assertion. There is the issue of UNDUE weight being placed onto the notion that him being a conspiracy theorist is linked to his death despite sources indicating otherwise. The fact is this person is not a notable conspiracy theorist in respect of academic sources or even retrospectively based on tabloid sources. His death could be notable by the standard of primary sources however, is not asserted by non-tabloid secondary sources. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and should not be for documenting news articles. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 09:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iantresman Except the BBC source isn't that reliable per my comment above. WP:NOTNEWS is also an issue. Widefox; talk 16:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, if the BBC source was the only source. But we have have several broadsheets who seem to find the subject matter notable. In my opinion, that satisfy the notability criteria, and I am fine if it falls short of other editor's standards. --Iantresman (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Currently this is a magnet for poor sources with speculative titles (Express, DailyMail, Metro "Who killed conspiracy theorist Max Spiers? Here's the top theories"). Clearly WP:NOT. Separating assertions of notability 1. Reporting on the inquest (Telegraph etc) is WP:PRIMARYNEWS (i.e. we don't count primaries for notability, and the BBC source is investigative so per PRIMARYNEWS "Investigative reports" may be strictly called a primary source), 2. his bio is clearly not notable 3. but his death may be (but it's WP:TOOSOON to know if it avoids WP:BIO1E "major role in a minor event"). The interplay between these aspects of the bio is tabloid fodder (speculation in sources) which aren't a good mix for a bio (WP:SYN/WP:OR/WP:CRYSTALL here), but IMHO are nothing to do with subjective judgements but a conflation of the assertions of notability. Widefox; talk 02:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If notability is not yet firmly established, which I agree with, doesn't that mean the strongest argument for keeping is actually WP:ATA#CRYSTAL i.e. one to avoid? and as WP:NOTTEMPORARY shouldn't we just say it's not notable now? Widefox; talk 02:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me that there's a paradox at play here - I agree with those who say that this person doesn't fulfil the requirements for being included on Wikipedia; on the other hand, IF he is removed, that would automatically fit in with those people who claim there are conspiracies out there - including a conspiracy to hide the news. Then there would be a need for an article about the "controversy" of removing this article, which would need to be explained by re-instating this article. In other words, it's not a topic for Wikipedia - but it very well could end up being one IF the article is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.25.244 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No paradox - if deleted then this AfD remains as a record of the arguments, including that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Widefox; talk 01:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He is gaining increased interest for his work and media attention for his death. The story is interesting and I'm sure as the investigation into his death develops, there will be more information to add to the article. 188.39.152.34 (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INTERESTING. Widefox; talk 13:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ Daily Mail is not good per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles .. . Widefox; talk 09:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Changed my !vote. Quick copyedit done. Balance is better, but without facts of death (inquest) this is built on OR that it's psychosis (drug induced). That caveat aside, noms withdrawn so nothing to see here. Widefox; talk 12:09, 3 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 soft delete. WP:SOFTDELETE applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Job and the Snake

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

Does not appear to be notable subject. It's not clear whether it had a real professional Off-Broadway production was as not referenced and no details from a google search. Lots of primary sources. Reference 2 in the Niagara Falls Review is a profile of an actor that does not mention this musical. Boneymau (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 17:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant, independent coverage of this play. One reference in a regional source about a performance in Niagra. Otherwise, most of the references come from a website owned/managed by the principal authors.Glendoremus (talk) 06:04, 13 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esico of Ballenstedt

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

Content is not verifiable. Ref - WP:BURDEN
TopCipher 11:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google books results suggests this is based on entries in Encyclopedia Brittanica and seems to give more results when spelled Esiko and when the German or French prepositions, von or de are used. Based on those results, I think the subject meets GNG. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded this page substantially over tha past day or so, largely based on Harz-Zeitschrift (2012) a historical journal about the Harz region. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Universe (EXEcutional)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic is about a fictional game within a comic/manga series. Topic has no coverage from reliable secondary sources. Article is composed of trivia and original research. The1337gamer (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 2 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Di Scala

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

Non-notable musician per music notability guidelines - TheMagnificentist 10:59, 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) 16:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I also note that most of the material is completely unsourced, which several of the key points that might show notability are from local, Liverpool, media. Liverpool has not been connected to the rest of the world as it was in the 1950s when The Beatles were forming. I also note that we usually delete BLPs about DJs and music producers, because they are so common, such as this subject. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but this is a mess. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 5 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Govind

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC: There is no significant coverage in reliable sources to support notability except this. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yousri Belgaroui

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both Glory and UFC are non-independent rankings - and because of that excluded from WP:KICK and WP:NMMA, respectively.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venator FC

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

Non-notable MMA organization. References only indicate that certain fighters fought for them in the past. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 17:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging Kerala (Magazine)

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

WP:NOTABILITY. This is a hype-laden article missing sourced notability; the only listed source that actually mentions the magazine is an event listing. Googling for "Emerging Kerala" magazine, I'm not finding significant sources (most of the gnews results are for an investor summit that had the same name.) Nat Gertler (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 5 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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LoveLump

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

While the existence of this artist project/hoax website seems established, there's very little to establish notability. Notability question was raised on Talk page in 2010. No coverage found in the sorts of sources usually considered reliable and very little else, jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:24, 5 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) 19:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FRVR (album)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:31, 3 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. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daylighter

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

Delete. Unsourced WP:DICDEF of a neologism, attested only in social networking and/or user-generated sources and not in any conventional reliable source literary or film criticism. While it's true that some recent writers of vampire literature have been trying to change things up from the traditional conventions by writing vampires who don't have to avoid sunlight, it's not Wikipedia's job to help propagate user-created neologisms for that -- our role here is to wait until critics analyze this as a thing, and cite their work on it to support an article. (By comparison, zombie fiction has also been evolving from traditional zombies toward fast-running musclehulk zombies and/or zombies who retain normal human cognitive function. But we don't have standalone articles about neologistic new terms for those new types of zombies -- we just discuss that evolution in the main article on zombie itself.) Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 2 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Arts and Sciences of Epirus

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

Lacks notability. This is a vehicle for user:Harrygouvas to promote himself (like all his contributions to en.WP, and el.WP), and to publish his supposedly important "historical" and "scientific" research, that otherwise would have remained in the drawer (see this page; even the string "MUSEUMOFARTSANDSCIENCESOFEPIRUSΜΟΥΣΕΙΟΤΕΧΝΩΝΚΑΙΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΩΝΗΠΕΙΡΟΥ" of the url confirms how H.Gouvas is eager to be connected to an institution, since he lacks of a realy important affiliation as a scientist; -he is just practicing medicine). As I had already noted elsewhere, Harry Gouvas' so-called "Museum" is a no-museum, no-foundation, no-institution, it is not certified by the Greek Ministry of Cultrure, as the Greek law requires for (real) museums. It does not house important collections of any kind (Gouvas himself has admitted that he failed to gain for his "collection" an official status by the Greek authorities), but "exhibits" like this. In general, the exhibits are replicas and copies of originals of poor or doubius qualitity. There are no published catalogues of the "museum" collections, or any other similar publication, like books or pamphlets for general readers. References to the collections of the "museum" by reliable sources cannot be found; only those H.Gouvas uploads on the net, usually throught forums and local friendly media. There is nothing notable about this "museum". On the abovementioned grounds the article has been deleted from the Greek Wikipedia, as well. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. –—Chalk19 (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 22:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dipti Dhotre

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR: I can't find anything in reliable sources to support/verify her role in any film listed in the article. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

442oons

442oons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG TheMagikCow (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:14, 4 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 Eric Young (wrestler) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Justice Brotherhood

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 07:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 07:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aarti Rana

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

No significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in details to support WP:GNG and I also can't see if she has played a major role in any of the television shows listed in the article so fails WP:NACTOR as well. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Soni

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

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Fight Club. Very little evidence of passing GNG, as pointed out by Delete voters, so I suggest a redirect to the film is in order. This does look like a BLP that SHOULD have a lot more coverage, but without significant third party coverage, policy says that it should not stand on its own. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Grayson Bell

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

Delete. WP:BLP, only marginally more substantial than "Ross Grayson Bell is a person who exists", about a film producer. He produced one of the most famous films of the past 20 years, so the notability claim is definitely there in theory -- but what it isn't is reliably sourced to media coverage about him: the sole reference here is a primary source press release announcing that he was giving a talk. According to his IMDb profile he hasn't produced a film since 2001, so needless to say he doesn't Google well; reliable sources might certainly exist in databases I don't have access to, but I can find nothing on my own that constitutes the kind of sourcing needed to salvage it. He does not inherit a "no valid sourcing required" freebie just because there's a famous film title involved, and we do not keep badly sourced articles just because better sourcing might exist somewhere; we keep badly sourced articles only if and when it can be definitively shown that the sourcing needed to repair them does exist. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but this as written simply isn't even close to good enough. Bearcat (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In all of those search locations, I just see a lot of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that's fundamentally about the film rather than about him. That's not what we're looking for, however — to count toward WP:GNG, a source has to contain significantly more information about him than just mentioning his name a single time. Basically, all those sources do is confirm that he exists — but not a single one of them enables us to add any more substance to the article beyond nominally verifying that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that many of the sources are as you say--just a listing of the key players with him on that line. However, some of the sources, such as those I mentioned, have much more substance. I agree with DGG that the film is of such significance that being the producer of it is sufficient to make him notable. I do think the amount of material in the article might be someone limited based on the sources I identified, but even if the article is short, the producer passes WP:GNG. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only source you offered above which is about him, in anything more than a "glancing acknowledgement of his existence" sort of way, is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person. That's a type of source that is subject to the same problems as self-published sourcing, because people can and do make inflated or inaccurate claims about themselves — so it can be used for supplementary confirmation of stray facts after he's already been sourced over GNG by better sources, but it cannot bring the GNG in and of itself as an article's only substantive "more than just a namecheck" source. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you can't source him over WP:GNG to more than just glancing namechecks of his existence, it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Passes GNG how and where? Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:47, 12 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. czar 08:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art Less

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

Does not appear to be a notable web series. All I could find online are series profiles on sites like IMDb, promotional material, or blogs by people who worked on the series. I found a few reviews but they appear to be self-published or otherwise are not by professional reviewers. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Too soon, will be notable in the future, but insufficient reliable information available now to craft a decent article. Fenix down (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2021 FIFA U-20 World Cup

2021 FIFA U-20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too far into the future, the hosts have not even been selected (and they haven't for the 2019 edition either). So there really is nothing to write about. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Persaud

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

Delete. WP:BLP, with a bit of an advertorial lean ("who loves to travel"?), of a filmmaker and photographer with no strong evidence of passing WP:CREATIVE for either endeavour. Her debut film "is now in post-production (release date unknown)" — but that text has been in the article unchanged since 2007, which means either the film never came out at all or it did and nobody noticed. And the closest thing to an actual claim of notability here is winning the Best Pitch (i.e. best idea for a film that doesn't exist yet) award at a film festival for the very same film. And for referencing, all we have here is primary sources and dead links. I would frankly have speedied this if the date stamp on the article creation wasn't a decade old. Bearcat (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 3 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 — CactusWriter (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Que

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

Delete. WP:BLP of an actor and musician, with no strong claim to passing either WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSIC. His television and film parts have been entirely bit parts (mostly as unnamed characters to boot), the introduction posits his most notable role as a community theatre production in Whitby (and I mean the one in Ontario, not the one in England), and the only thing here that might maybe constitute an NMUSIC pass, a nomination at the VIMA Music Awards, is both unsourced and unsupported by the award's article. And for sourcing, what we have here is IMDb (not a reliable or notability-conferring source) and blogs right across the board, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in real media shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free résumé-hosting platform for emerging actors looking for publicity -- he must already be the subject of reliable source coverage, which verifies that he's already achieved something that satisfies a notability criterion, for an article to become earned. It's not "get into Wikipedia and then maybe you'll get bigger parts and win a Dora someday"; it's "win the Dora and then maybe you'll get into Wikipedia". Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. SNOW keep. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Unger

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Sites such as primary sources, interviews, Amazon, and Goodreads are not reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Molina

Hector Molina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. WP:BLP of a television sportscaster, referenced only to his primary source profile on the website of the team he sportscasts for. Being a sportscaster is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a reliable source coverage -- it would be enough if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but all I can find on a Google News search is coverage of unrelated people with the same name. Bearcat (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is also the subject of this article--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better than nothing...but not substantial enough to get him over WP:GNG by itself if it's the best we can find. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Johnson (composer)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Interviews are not reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hae now upgraded the other refs as the creating editor found it too difficult: they include Time Out and The Wire. Clearly a notable, if somewhat obscure, character. PamD 09:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I put the article, and thank you to those who have supported keeping it. Though Dennis Johnson isn't a 'famous' person I believe he deserves credit for his contribution in the development of minimal music. Musicologist Kyle Gann (who is an expert in this field) thought it worthy of spending a great deal of time to let the music be known. Luciferfan (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arise Academy

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

It appears this school was only open for a couple of years and popped into the news when some directors were charged with taking bribes. Other than that I can find no substantial coverage of the school (and it's unlikely there ever will be since the school has closed). If we keep the article, I don't think it could ever be expanded beyond a couple sentences about this one event. Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Arise! Academy. The demise of the school and the associated criminal convictions [57] were widely reported, not just in Ohio,[58] but also received significant coverage in the washington post, Indiana [59], and elsewhere, meeting gng.
  • Keep The scope and breadth of sources supplied establish notability for this kinds of school. Alansohn (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the included and above links, I'm still not seeing what makes this school independently notable. Everything that needs to be said about the criminal convictions can be said in a parent article. czar 15:27, 4 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, per WP:CSD#G11. (Non-admin closure) Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Simon E. Mills

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

No independent references seem to be available to support statements. Activities do not appear to be notable, in any case. Boneymau (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 15:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdirahman Koronto

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a journalist, written like a résumé and referenced solely to his own WordPress blog, with no evidence of reliable source coverage to demonstrate that he passes WP:JOURNALIST. As always, every journalist is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because his own work verifies that he exists; he gets an article when he's the subject of content written by other people, but none is being shown here. Also possible conflict of interest, as the article was created by "AMAK2015". Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. czar 15:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Dinkel

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. After I removed IMDB and press release sources as unreliable, there wasn't anything left that could be called significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and no demonstration of meeting WP:MUSICBIO criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 2 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. czar 15:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive Energy Ltd.

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

Per WP:NCORP Very little coverage of the company outside of primary sources. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Products and Services
2. Offices and Facilities
3. Leadership
4. Organization and History
Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST to duplicate a company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW. The article does verify that he competed in the Melbourne Olympics, and so if nothing else, WP:NOLYMPICS would apply. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ayub (athlete)

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

Could not find reliable sources for establishing notability. This person thus fails WP:NBIO and WP:ATHLETE. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flybe Flight 1284

Flybe Flight 1284 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of detailed discussion from sources about the incident suggest there is not enough encyclopedic content for this incident. This also pertains to its notability. Jolly Ω Janner 01:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This incident is notable enough to keep, as long as more sources could be added and the article expanded as a result.TH1980 (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove There have been many landing gear collapse incidents in the past, and without injuries/major damage, this incident is not significant enough to warrant its own article. I do however recommend mentioning this on the Flybe page and the Storm Doris page. BlankBarcode 25 February 2017

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

The result was delete. czar 05:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Zamberlin

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

Non notable son of a notable person. At best deserves a redirect to the father's article. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG or any of the WP:NSPORTS guidelines. The-Pope (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 3 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 draftify as a reasonable compromise between straight keep and deleting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ginta Biku

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

Non-notable singer who's participated in one event that she didn't even win (and placed towards the bottom in). The article is also poorly formatted. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 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) 12:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@J947, it's not the quantity of mentions but the quality of depth czar 08:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to draft space - I'm split over whether the article passes WP:MUSICBIO but I'm erring on the side of failure. However, as the article was recently created and there's a fair bit of content I think, due to its poor writing style and layout, it should be incubated in the draft space to give the creator a chance at improving it. Failing that, it'd be a weak delete per WP:DYNAMITE. DrStrauss talk 16:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and go through the WP:AFC process as there is notability but the article needs improvement as it is too promotional at present Atlantic306 (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J947 05:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bala Hijam

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Wikis and blogs are not reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, with the large number of films that Hijam has appeared in, she appears to meet WP:NACTOR ie. "1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films", but a lot of these appear to be minor roles, and the films' articles don't necessarily reflect their notability ie. 1.The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. 2.The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. (most have only two trivial and/or non-useable references, would appreciate input from Indianmovieexpert editors, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She is considered as a prominent actor in Manipur. Mint calls her one of Manipur's 2 leading ladies in [62]. As is mentioned in the previous source, she is threatened by insurgents against acting in movies of other languages. Coupled with the fact that she comes from the North East India, which generally does not occupy news for the right reasons. However she is one of the few actresses from the region who is known to the wider audience of India ([63] is an example for the same). She is also a winner of the Manipur State Film awards for Best Actress [64]. Jupitus Smart 07:19, 3 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. czar 08:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vas Panagiotopoulos

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a journalist, referenced almost entirely to his own writing. As always, a journalist does not get a Wikipedia article on the basis of references where he's the bylined author of content about other things; he gets a Wikipedia article on the basis of references where he's the subject of content written by other people. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but the referencing shown here is not what it takes. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. czar 08:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ebenezar Wikina

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a journalist, referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, a journalist is not automatically entitled to an article just because his existence can be verified by directories of his own writing on the websites of the publications he wrote for; he gets an article when reliable sources he is not affiliated with are writing about his writing, but nothing like that has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 2 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. czar 05:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amna Nasir Jamal

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a journalist, referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. There's a potentially valid claim of notability here as a winner of an entrepreneurial award, but that's not a notability freebie in the absence of media coverage about her winning of the award. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I find no substantial independent coverage of her. As for her claimed activities and achievements: Except for a website called www.santribune.com that seems to be empty, I can't find evidence of any publication called either SAN Tribute or Globe Sentinel. If they exist, they are certainly not notable. Google findings for "International Women Entrepreneur Challenge", besides a couple of pages on the site of a photographer who worked one of their events, are exclusively cases where the organization's award appears on one person or another's list of achievements, so it isn't a notable award. Largoplazo (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough secondary sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Schaffer

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a single market local television anchor with a few bit part roles of the "journalist plays a journalist in one short scene" variety in TV shows, sourced only to his staff profile on the website of the television station where he works with no evidence of reliable source coverage and no valid claim to passing WP:JOURNALIST shown at all. As always, every local television anchor does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he exists; he must be reliably sourced as more notable than the norm before he qualifies. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 3 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. czar 05:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Cartait

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

Minor roles only, no major coverage; fails WP:NACTOR. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. czar 05:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Polikarpova

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a "regional brand and marketing communication specialist", which just asserts that she exists and sources the fact to her own social networking profiles, but offers no substance and no reliable source coverage to indicate why her existence would pass a Wikipedia notability criterion. As always, we are not a free publicity platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because they can be verified as existing; an actual claim of notability, supported by reliable source coverage, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 4 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. czar 05:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Thau

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

Delete. WP:BLP, with some advertorial overtones, of a podcaster who has a valid potential claim of notability but is nowhere close to reliably sourcing it properly. The referencing here depends almost entirely on primary sources rather than independent ones -- and the closest thing to a solid source, Slate, just namechecks her existence briefly without being about her in any substantive way. And I'm not finding much improved sourcing on a Google News search either -- I get a fair number of glancing namechecks of her existence, but not a lot of coverage about her. No prejudice against recreation if and when somebody can source her better than this -- but a podcaster does not get a Wikipedia article just because it can be referenced to its own download page on iTunes or her staff profiles on the websites of her own past employers. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Non-Dropframe talk 00:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 nonillion

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

Non-notable word formed on a predictable numeric system in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. —Non-Dropframe talk 00:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Jefferson, J'na (August 23, 2016). "Premiere: Derrick Milano Wreaks Havoc In "What Else?" In New Video". Vibe. Retrieved 23 January 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_February_25&oldid=768495302"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy