The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With no prejudice against renaming as suggested by multiple participants here, if a consensus on a title can be reached on the talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Tamils[edit]

Singapore Tamils (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 redundant to Indian Singaporeans, not a notable ethnic group. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I think redirected the article maybe better. SA 13 Bro 12:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to Indian Singaporeans, plausible search term. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article, Singapore Tamils are one of the major ethnic group in Singapore, Tamil bring one of it's official languages, even if you think it's not a major ethnic group, no where in Wikipedia says that you can delete an article based on just it's not a major ethnic group how small or big the ethnic group it is. if you feel it's justifiable to delete Singapore Tamils, then will you delete Malayali Australian and hundreds of different articles relates to various people groups to be deleted as well? Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is no significant coverage or if the content has ben already covered, then we don't keep an article. If you feel other articles have been unjustifiably kept, please nominate them for deletion as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Indian Singaporeans This is content fork and should be deleted per WP:DEL5. The content is already covered in Indian Singaporeans and I guess a redirect is fine here. I honestly don't see the need to keep a redirect hanging around. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Tamil is distinct from the rest of India (like all other languages that united under the Indian banner). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tamil is an official language of Singapore. That should qualify the group for notability.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No it doesn't. The Tamils ave been classified as Indian Singaporeans (See Demographics_of_Singapore#Ethnic_groups). Also the article is a WP:POVFORK which simply duplicates material at Indian Singaporeans --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: How the Singaporean government classifies its population doesn't dictate which articles are created on Wikipedia. All that matters is whether reliable sources discuss Singapore Tamils, which they do.

It's common for one large ethnic group to be sub-divided into smaller groups e.g Asian Americans and Chinese Americans or British Asian and British Indian. There is no reason why we can't have both Indian Singaporeans and Singapore Tamils. And as this article makes clear, not all Singapore Tamils are from India, many are from Sri Lanka. The article does have issues but none that merit deletion.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we divide larger ethnic groups, but this is a not needed here when the vast majority of information can be included/or is duplicated in another article (See WP:NOPAGE). The thing is that Tamils in Singapore (whether from Sri Lanka or India) are still classified as Indian Singaporeans where the term "Indian" is an ethnic term. The article Indian Singaporeans makes it clear that it cover both Tamils from India as well as from Sri Lanka. When an article already covers a topic, it becomes a WP:POVFORK to create another without a clear need. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear need - Indian Singaporeans is a very large article (nearly 80kB) and is good candidate for WP:SPINOUT. Tamils make up the largest part of "Indian" Singaporeans, therefore the first logical article for spin off is Singapore Tamils. The issues with duplicated content can be overcome by summarising the content in Indian Singaporeans. There are issues with Singapore Tamils but these can be overcome.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tamil is an official language of Singapore, and Tamils are one of the majot ethnic group.--Kanags (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for those who are not familiar with Singapore See Demographics_of_Singapore#Ethnic_groups In Singapore the major ethnic groups are Chinese, Malays and Indians (and Tamils are a subgroup of Indians). We don't have articles about sub-groups because the most sources study Indians as a whole. More importantly, this article is a WP:POVFORK it was creating by copying content from Indian Singaporeans without attribution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are articles do exists for other sub-groups such as Sri Lankans in Singapore etc.. Also Singaporean Indians are quiet distinct from Tamil Nadu expatriates in Singapore who are recent migrants has cultural differences between Singaporean Indian, and numerous than latter.Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to vote again. Please see WP:NOPAGE and WP:POVFORK. When you created Singapore Tamils you copied content without attribution from Indian Singaporeans. Sri Lankans in Singapore are a separate nationality - the government classifies them as "others", not Indian. But the Tamils form the vast majority of Indian Singaporeans and have never been counted as anything other than Indian. Tamil Nadu expatriates in Singapore are not a notable group - in fact, I have always seen sources discussing them as Indian Singaporeans. If we don't have sources, we can't have an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article need to be kept for reasons: 1. Indian Singaporeans article clearly mentions it's just about Singapore Citizens of Indian descent, it doesn't mentions anything about Other Tamil people living in Singapore who possess Indian and Sri Lankan citizens. 2. There are significant difference among Indian Singaporeans and Other Tamils. ^[1][2] 3. There are about 400,000 Other Tamils living in Singapore who are not counted in Indian Singaporeans article.^[3] 4. Also for your note, Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamil descent Singaporeans Also counted as Indian Singaporeans by Singapore government. 5. NRIs from Tamil Nadu are existing as separate community of sort in Singapore, though there is thin line of difference between Indian Singaporeans Tamils and Singapore Tamil Migrants from Tamil Nadu. ^[4]

Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not getting the points. We don't create a new article unless absolutely necessary. In addition, you citation doesn't state that "Singapore Tamils" are NOT "Indian Singaporeans".The article as it is now contains a bunch of WP:OR. I will explain below. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about Undefined scope The article claims to be: Singapore Tamils refers to Tamil speaking people of Singapore, predominantly migrated to Singapore in recent times, who were distinct from Tamil speaking native Singaporeans Firstly this is not cited in any reliable source. Secondly if the article is about recent immigrants from Tamil Nadu, then it should be at Tamil Nadu diaspora. The content of the article is not significant - half of it is duplicated from Indian Singaporeans and the other half is WP:OR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not at all the same as Indian Singaporeans. Perhaps rename to Tamil Diaspora in Singapore.--Yellow Diamond (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is about the Tamil Diaspora in Singapore, then add the content to Tamil_diaspora#Malaysia_and_Singapore. That has more content than this article. If the article grows, then propose a WP:SPLIT. Per WP:NOPAGE, I don't see why need a WP:POVFORK at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if this is really a POVFork, but I'd support a merge.Yellow Diamond (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as a content fork, and a breach of WP:NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles is not a breach of WP:NOR, I have added enough citation to justify Singapore Tamil community is existing one, the word is also. Here is the reference from National Board of Libraries (Singapore)^[1], Tamil community in Singapore includes both Indian, and Sri Lankan origin Tamil, it also include earlier migrants and recent ones. But the article Indian Singaporean refers only Indian origin Tamils who migrated to Singapore earlier. So, I suggest keep the article and help to improve it. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Quote from Indian Singaporeans "Singapore's Indian community is characterised by an ethnic Tamil majority (54.18%) and a large number of smaller groups. Ethnic Tamils in Singapore include both Tamils from India and Sri Lankan Tamils". Indian Singaporeans covers both Indian Tamils and Sri Lankan Tamils. It also included the recent migrants (See "Contemporary period: 1990s – present"). At this point your article is a redudant content fork. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why you have mentioned earlier Sri Lankans are categorized as other ethnic groups earlier. Hope you clarify things better rather conflicting your own views. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for goodness sake, "Sri Lankan" refers to a nationality in this context. Recent migrants from Sri Lanka in Singapore (who are Sinhalese) are NOT classified are Indians. They are classified as "others". But earlier migrants from Ceylon (as it was then known) were Tamils and they were classified as Indians. The article about Sri Lankans in Singapore it badly written an unsourced. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Singapore Department of Statistics defines 'Indians' as a 'race' (or 'ethnic group'), comprising "persons of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan origin such as Tamils, Malayalis, Punjabis, Bengalis, Singhalese etc this is from Indian Singaporean article. You are contradicting your view once again. :( it's seems you just don't want article on Singapore Tamils sub-group among Indians, but seems okay with other Sub groups. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no double standards. What you are not realising is that we don't have articles about individual ethnicities titled Sinhalese in Singapore, Punjabis in Singapore, Bengalis in Singapore. We only have Sri Lankans in Singapore and Indians in Singapore (which was later moved to Indian Singaporeans but it still one article). By a long standing consensus we do have articles about Nationality intersecting Nationality, provided a significant coverage exists. But we don't create individual ethnicity pages if the information is already covered in other articles. This is called a content fork and it not useful. Malayali Australians which you cited is another good example of a content fork (and it should be redirected/merged as well). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Winnan Tirunallur: There are no such articles on any of these sub-groups in Singapore because they are bundled together. This is an encyclopaedic article being discussed, not an exercise in WP:BLUDGEONing a single editor because you're pushing the envelope in order to challenging that editor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As per Kanags, "Tamil is an official language of Singapore, and Tamils are one of the majority ethnic group".Shankar2001 (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, whilst there is significant overlap between Indian Singaporeans and Tamils in Singapore, these are still distinct concepts and an article on Tamils in Singapore (and Tamil language and culture in the country) is definately a legit article subject. --Soman (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources have been shown on this article that Tamils are regarded as separate from native Indians in Singapore. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources have been shown on this article that Tamils are regarded as separate from native Indians in Singapore? Where? I saw this which mentions "Singapore Tamils" and on reading the article it uses "Indians" not Tamils. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Tamils are defined in Wikipedia as "Tamils, are an ethnic group who speak Tamil as their mother tongue....."; they are a sub-group of native Indians in Singapore. You don't need word to word something to define as "Tamils".Shankar2001 (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - arguments provided seem to point towards this group being both distinct and notable Spiderone 09:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not a huge fan of WP:OTHERCRAP arguments, but in this case, there is quite a bit of other crap. Seems overall like a relevant demographic classification. TimothyJosephWood 13:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article about demographics, but that of 'ethnicity'. While there may be arguments for a SPIN-OFF article, the entire article was lifted from the Indian Singaporeans article without any form of discussion. I fail to see what cats have to do with whether an article is merited or not: they're categories, and do not serve to define articles. WP:OTHERSTUFF cuts both ways. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity is a demographic classification? And the category was provided as a list of examples of similar articles, for example, that we have a 35k article on all 15k Eurasians in Singapore. When there are a half million Tamils, I find it hard to believe that a full article isn't warranted in principle. Having said that, I wouldn't be opposed at all to draftifying it if the creator wants to beef it up some, and perhaps request input from related WikiProjects. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as sufficient given the similarities. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, better renamed to Singaporean Tamils. This is a concept distinct from Indian Singaporeans, which include a significant number of non-Tamil people such as Punjabis. Lysimachi (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as another week has suggested Keep is in fact the outcome here (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 152[edit]

London Buses route 152 (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 Nordic Nightfury 09:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 09:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 09:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. I only managed to find one online article that the bus route is the subject of. It is unlikely to be the subject of offline sources such as those from the London Omnibus Traction Society.   Tentinator   11:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing remarkable about this route. Lists of references about contract transfers doesn't establish notability. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Be consistent -- We eliminated many bus route articles several years ago, but left at least some of the London ones, because they had a significant stability and duration. We should either delete them all or none, or some but only according to some agreed criterion. I might well vote for them all to be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the bus route has been around since at least 1936 as this revision of the article shows. There may be other bits from that revision that could be extracted and sourced. Generally speaking bus routes are significant, permanent parts of cities, which tend to be consistent and not often changed. London bus routes are well discussed in a variety of books; and normally individual bus routes are discussed in local papers etc. when there are major changes as can be seen in the revision of the article I have linked to. There is a small trickle of bus routes nominated for deletion every-so-often; the main argument of those voting delete are similar every time, thus there should be a large scale deletion nomination articles of such bus articles where there is actually significant community input as opposed to the same editors popping up every time. Delete all, or establish a notability criteria as this 'whack a mole' approach to deletion of these articles are inconsistent and ultimately overall harming the encyclopedia- an article that could be deleted one day could be kept the next depending on the editors that show up to the deletion discussion. Edit: oh and more sources. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: since I voted to keep this article, significant progress has been made to source and restore the historically valuable information linked to in the diff above, and as such, my keep vote not only still applies, but I am yet more affirmative in my opinion that this article should be kept. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC) (Original[1], RM/Updated 03:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep. Bus routes are major parts of community infrastructure. They aree normally reasonabley permaent and appropriate for articles, just as similar rail infrastructure. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, nothing notable here. Jeni ^(talk) 09:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Nothing of encyclopedic interest here.Charles (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Per DGG and Jcc. And also due to the fact that more sourced information has been found and added. There also needs to be more consistency rather than nominating bus route articles for deletion in the first place. There is also no need for a deletion discussion as the article can be redirected if believed that it is not a notable route (but this has some sourced information, unlike some others which I have redirected without the need of a discussion). All bus routes should be notable IMO, as they are an integral part of a city. Class455 (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Class455, can you please advise as to which part of Wikipedia:Speedy keep applies here? Jeni ^(talk) 11:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict). A small bit of Part 2c applies. IIRC, The last three London bus articles nominated for deletion were given the same reason why they should be deleted and have all been kept. But the main reason is that I'm sick and tired of seeing bus route articles being nominated for deletion without any attempt to find sources to prove notability when some are available, its time these discussions stopped and we actually did something to improve the articles rather than hinder them! Unless there is actually something wrong with them (something that meets the speedy deletion criteria), which isn't the case here. We should start a discussion at WT:LT or at Wikiproject Buses and create a drive to improve the quality of bus route articles. Class455 (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The last 3[2][3][4] all closed as delete? And in all 3, you !voted delete. Do I detect that you perhaps have a bit of bias towards London articles here? WP:SPEEDY doesn't apply here, please strike out 'speedy'. Note: This comment was made before Class455 edited their initial comment in an attempt to make me look stupid.[5] Jeni ^(talk) 12:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean non-London bus routes discussions. I don't have a bias towards London Bus routes, even though I live in Greater London, as I have myself redirected a few routes for lack of notability rather than nominating them for deletion, and voted to redirect London Buses route 320. Also, I will not strike "speedy" out as I am entitled to my opinion. And I will keep on !voting "speedy keep" until something is done to address the problem we clearly have. At the moment, I've got more important things to do, but next week, I should be able to start a discussion as I'm on Christmas break, unless someone else does. Class455 (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the end of February 2016, Jeni, you have commented on the deletion of 57 bus routes and voted to delete 56 of them. "Do I detect a bit of bias" here? Don't call the kettle black. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again more content has been found and referenced. Even more of a reason why I'm !voting speedy keep. Class455 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to this source it is a self-published fansite and not a reliable source for Wikipedia.Charles (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually consider that a reliable source, I've just seen it. It has maps and timetables extracted/scanned from older timetables and there are pictures to back up the evidence. I don't see why not. Some "self published fansites" can be reliable. If you don't think so, WP:RSN is this way. Class455 (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what you think. Wikipedia does not accept self-published sources as reliable.Charles (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The website in question displays scanned in timetables. It is the reliability of the scanned London Transport timetables/Red Books sources that matters, not that of the website which is hosting it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like copyright violation by the website owner then. Copying the timetables into another site does not make them a secondary source.Charles (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am led to believe that there is nothing wrong with the usage of primary sources to prove direct claims- in this article, the use of a primary source (a London Transport timetable) to prove that the bus route ran every 20 minutes in 1962 is allowed. Not that I think information like that is particularly relevant, but it's not trying to be used as a secondary source. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~Yes, if we need that information the primary source can be cited directly. What this secondary self-published site does not do is contribute to establishing notability of the topic. It is not significant or reliable coverage to meet WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The current article is not problematic and it seems easy to improve by references to sources such as The Fundamental Principles of Road Passenger Transport Operation. Our policy is to keep such pages. Andrew D. (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Without reading it I very much doubt The Fundamental Principles of Road Passenger Transport Operation is written specifically about this route as would be required to contribute to establishing notability.Charles (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is significant coverage on page 211. Andrew D. (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You are completely missing the point here. For a subject to meet WP:GNG there need to be secondary sources written specifically about it, not just mentioning it as part of a wider topic. And "Try to fix problems" only applies to content appropriate to an encyclopedia, which is determined by WP:GNG, which has not been shown to be met for this subject.Charles (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."  So, significant coverage can be as little as one sentence at a time, in numerous sources, and satisfy WP:GNG.  Nor is WP:N a content guideline, with an exception for involving lists.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (also keep Route 109). I haven't followed the discussions regarding the bus route articles that actually have been deleted (I just stumbled over these two), but if they can be properly referenced, I do not see a problem in (some of) them being resurrected. However, as a general note, if someone knows about books, journals, or other references that are not online, please cite them in the articles at the appropriate places. There need not be a whole book dedicated to a topic, but there should be a chapter or a major section. Also, if you find information in an article that does not seem to be properly referenced, please tag it instead of deleting it. --Schlosser67 (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some books available, particularly from enthusiast websites which sells them (such as Ian Allan) and museums such as the London Transport Museum or the London Bus Museum in Brooklands about this bus route, and others. Class455 (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- the article appears to be reasonably well sourced at this point and provides relevant information one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While it might be difficult to believe for some, but a lot of these bus routes and transportation infrastructure are encyclopedic topics and the combination of all the coverage in the sourcing demonstrates that. --Oakshade (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Fiadeiro[edit]

Isabel Fiadeiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Only sources included are to artists own website/self written items. A few articles mention an Isabel Fiadeiro but do not seem to be about the same person. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 12:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG ^Avic_ennasis @ 16:57, 18 Kislev 5777 / 16:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James G. Pappas[edit]

James G. Pappas (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 art teacher. Fails WP:ARTIST. Yintan  09:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As written, fails WP:CREATIVE. Not all artists are notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable art teacher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw^talk 08:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Trachtenberg[edit]

Geoffrey Trachtenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, hi Seelie, we need a reason for this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Sure thing, Coolabahapple--sorry. As I've mentioned in the edits of the page itself, I don't believe notability has been sufficiently established. This page was created for profit by a user who has been repeatedly blocked from editing because of non-disclosure of paid editing. Nevertheless, I gave it the benefit of the doubt and stuck a non-notability tag on the page. Seven months later, still *crickets*. Seelie (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

great, thanks. :) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. TJRC (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Little indication of notability. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage by third party sources that show notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus to keep among the participants, who have added sources for the subject's notability concerns. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Elliot[edit]

Jason Elliot (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: dubious notability as travel writer; wrote only two books; only of which (Mirrors of the Unseen: Journeys in Iran) was reviewed. known and/or reviewed. Quis separabit? 09:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "wrote only two books" and?, WP:NAUTHOR does not require writing more than two books 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.", a good example of this is Harper Lee. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, reviews include: An Unexpected Light - New York Times - "An Unexpected Light is often unexpectedly funny and constantly perceptive, but it is also profound."[6], Mirrors of the Unseen - The Guardian - "In these sad and dirty days of demonisation and prejudice few books could be more apposite than Jason Elliot's thoughtful portrait of Iran."[7]; The Network - New York Times - "An unlikely candidate for the espionage genre, Elliot is known primarily for “An Unexpected Light,” a much-praised narrative of his travels in Afghanistan published a decade ago. And here he takes us back to that place and time — the innocent days when the words “Al Qaeda” and “Osama bin Laden” would have drawn blank stares at the water cooler."[8]; The Telegraph - "Vividly descriptive, wittily discursive, archly plotted and unusually paced, this radiates the charm of an author as curious about the Vauxhall property market as he is about convoluted Afghan politics."[9], to mention just a few. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote two books. The books were reviewed. How does that enhance his notability? I acknowledge the books were published. Quis separabit? 23:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article needs a lot of work, and I'll work on it a bit. I have never seen such an external links section bigger than the article. However, when I add travel to his name in the customized search, I get 1,870 hits which include the New York Times at the top, meeting WP:GNG--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, revisiting this afd, "He wrote two books. The books were reviewed. How does that enhance his notability?" - have a look at WP:NAUTHOR no. 3, i only put a bit of if in my above "keep" here it is in full - 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., if you had read my keep you would have seen 3 books, are they well known?, unexpected light in 1200 libraries, Mirrors of the Unseen in 700+ libraries, and The Network, oh look a 3rd book, in 600+ libraries, so well known, plus no.3 above requires, in addition, multiple reviews, also cited above, so that is how (well known) books enhance a person's notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Osgood[edit]

Hugh Osgood (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 is an autobiographical piece about a person of limited notability, that cannot be edited to make it into an encyclopaedic article. Furthermore a lack of verifiable references mean that I have been unable to check any facts, meaning that the authenticity of this Biography of a Living Person cannot be verified - reason enough, by itself, to make this article subject for deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The moderator of an inter-denominational grouping of churches has a role of similar status to a bishop (or even above), from which I conclude that that the subject is notable. However there is rather too much authored by the subject, which is contrary to policy on sources, not to mention COI issues. My guess is that the content is verifiable, though not all RS-verified. Nevertheless, some of it comes from RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Next to no coverage, fails GNG/BIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep User:Peterkingiron's rationale for keep looked valid, so I searched and added sourced his election as Moderator. Article needs improvement. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject appears to pass WP:BIO standards, although the article could benefit from editorial input. I don't see what is gained by deleting it. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The mere fact that he is moderator of the "Free Churches Group", which includes the Methodist Church in England, should result in his passing WP:GNG. Osgood doesn't ·have much press coverage (see http://www.christiantoday.com/article/millions.of.christians.to.unite.to.pray.for.revival.in.britain/95818.htm; https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2015/sep/05/assisted-dying-bill-leaders-faith-communities-letter-against; and http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=27022) but what coverage there is seems fairly creditable. As mentioned by others, the article needs improvement but that is never a reason for deletion. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig's links remain unaddressed and, at first glance, seem to indicate notability.  Sandstein  18:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Joe Ebola and the Children MacNuggits[edit]

Bobby Joe Ebola and the Children MacNuggits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable under the criteria of WP:MUSIC, local San Fransisco act that put out their own releases. No indication of chart success, nationwide tours or a major label release. The article is largely promotional in tone and has a considerable CoI contribution. Sourcing is very poor and largely based on primary sources (Discogs and the band's own website) or local SF newspapers. Nothing to suggest that the band have a national profile of any sort. Karst (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete obviously promotional, and not significant, but that name.... wtf? Layla, the remover (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article could use some work, but some decent coverage found, e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. --Michig (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Stewart (musician)[edit]

Benjamin Stewart (musician) (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 fail the notability guideline for musicians. None of his released albums seem to have achieved anything of significance, and while the claim "The song "Innocence", from the album, peaked in the charts for ambient music" would be sufficient claim to notability I can't find any evidence for it having occurred, although "ambient music" chart is a broad enough term that perhaps I'm simply not looking in the right place. Nor do any of the associated acts listed seem to be notable, based on my web searching. C628 (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly as you know an article is trivial and unconvincing when the best there is to cite is his own website (!!) and it's also clear none of this amounts to substance hence delete is the solution for it. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete total lack of sources to even approach the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Glasgow_Corporation_Tramways#.22Coronation.22_cars. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow tram 1245[edit]

Glasgow tram 1245 (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 seem to be notable and is seemingly insignificant. Snood1205 (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The preservation of this unit is already described at Glasgow_Corporation_Tramways#.22Coronation.22_cars. That seems sufficient as I am not seeing individual notability. (Personal side-note: Memories of standing in a downpour as a small boy with my father watching The Last Night of the Trams as the units, presumably including this one, were driven to Pollokshields.) AllyD (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as wp:CRUFT. It doesn't warrant the need for a separate article, unless explicitly notable. Nordic Nightfury 08:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the above mentioned page. Does not need a standalone article.Charles (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Charles. It's not individually notable enough for a standalone article, but given the coverage in the tramways article it's not an unlikely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Charles. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Godfather II (video game). Closing this discussion because I don't believe a third re-list would benefit it at all. The only keep vote has not addressed the issue of notability, which is the reason why this article is here in the first place. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carmine Rosato Family[edit]

Carmine Rosato Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, speedy close. The current inadequate condition of the article is not, in and of itself, a justification for outright deletion. It is evident that a suitable redirect target exists, and this should have been opened as a talk page discussion. AFD is not for cleanup, especially in the absence of any attempt to comply with WP:BEFORE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The above is utter nonsense, a silly attempt at wikilawyering that has not worked once. BEFORE is a not a policy, and there is no requirement in AfD to follow such. It is simply a suggestion on how to deal with such articles. This is another form of consensus-seeking discussion, and it is far more productive than putting a tag on a dead page that nobody visits. Regardless of the intentions behind it, this content is not suitable for Wikipedia, so it should be removed. Deletion is most preferable to prevent its recreation, but redirecting is fine as well. However much you disagree with how I do things, at least try to provide an actual argument. TTN (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• While I have no opinion on this article at this time, I agree that the above comment is problematic wikilawyering. HW: If you think the article should be kept, please provide some evidence and/or an argument for the subject's notability. If you think the content could be merged somewhere, or the article could be turned into a redirect, please identify a target. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Godfather II (video game). Extremely minor fictional characters, whose article is nothing but unsourced cruft. Looking for information on the characters, the only hits that come up are things like game guides for the video game they come from, which does not establish notability. I mean, I'd be fine with a complete Delete, really, but a redirect is appropriate as well. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Godfather II (video game) per above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing this as no consensus (default to keep) as I highly doubt a third relist would benefit or encourage discussion. Some more sources have been added by contributors to address WP:GNG guidelines. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 15:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Messina Dysert[edit]

Gina Messina Dysert (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 still confirm my PROD as the history and numbered accounts confirm this was part of a paid advertising campaign so policy WP:NOT applies as it is, enough said as we all know there's no compromise s with both paid advertising and numerous accounts involved with such activities. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough impact to pass notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The subject of the article barely passes GNG with multiple RS covering her and her writing (Please see my clean up and additions in the article itself). I am not sure where SwisterTwister is finding evidence of a "paid advertising campaign." Looking through the article's history, I'm not seeing it, unless you are asserting there is sockpuppetry, I don't see how you can tell this is part of a paid campaign. Please be more specific in such assertions. Further, there is no need to hold the subject of the article to the standard of PROF, GNG is enough. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No impact on the world of scholarship is found. Only GS citations are self-citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

You are holding the subject to a higher standard than GNG. She does not need to pass PROF to be notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think she doesn't yet pass WP:PROF, but that sources like [16] [17] [18] [19] give her enough notability through WP:GNG instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Fast Track NLP[edit]

New Fast Track NLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An article by a single-purpose account of questionable neutrality about (what reads like) pseudo-science. The sources cited are not good, and a Google search is throwing up nothing of value. This is not a page which should be on Wikipedia. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It should be noted that the sources present in the article do not actually talk about the concept of "New Fast Track NLP" at all. Rather, they are links to information on the various other pseudo-sciences mentioned, which the article then synthesizes together to talk about this subject. So, really, there actually are no sources in the article at all that talk about this concept at all, and the only hits in searches come from either mirrors of this article or from unreliable sources like Youtube, making it pretty clear that this does not come close to meeting the GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with 64.183.45.226 regarding the synthesis and will add it looks a bit promotional, too. I also could not find independent reliable sources about this particular variation on NLP. The topic of NLP is notable fringe, but this subtopic seems to fail notability per WP:GNG. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rafał Zaborowski[edit]

Rafał Zaborowski (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 played in fully professional league according to this: http://www.90minut.pl/kariera.php?id=25760. Also a lot of false information. Couldn't find anything on him playing for Wolfsburg or signing contract with Piast Gliwice Dudek1337 (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails NFOOTY currently Spiderone 08:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Author moved the page into draft space. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York City Public School Alumni[edit]

List of New York City Public School Alumni (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 nearly indiscriminate list of alumni of a school SYSTEM with the potential of becoming too big to handle. The Banner talk 22:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lists of alumni by school either in the article about the school - or if long enough, as a standalone list - make sense. Lists by school district or system do not. Such a list overlaps all such lists by school; and if complete, will be redundant. As an experiment, I looked at Andrew Jackson High School (Queens). That article records eight notable alumni; only one of which is included in the big list under discussion.

List of lists of New York City public school alumni, with links to relevant list articles or sections, could be a worthwhile navigation tool - which this list isn't. Narky Blert (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This page is not solely a random list of alumni-- it includes narrative about the history and impact of New York City public school alumni based on outside sources. It also follows the WP:GNG Notability Guideline because while many articles on the web discuss New York City and its public school alumni, this is the first and only Wikipedia page on the topic. All of the people listed on the page are considered notable in accordance with the Notability Guideline as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobBurgess89 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is not notability, the problem is the width of the area covered. Usually such a list is made up by school not by school system. Potentially, you can get a list of many thousands successful and notable alumni... The Banner talk 11:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note, the author has moved the page in question into draft space. TimothyJosephWood 15:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Marie Jennings[edit]

Eugenia Marie Jennings (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 clear case of BLP1E. A woman committed a crime, and the only reason she received any media attention is she happened to be the first person President Obama pardoned. Nothing before or after has provided significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: agree with nom as clearly non-notable under BLP1E. Do all beneficiaries of presidential or gubernatorial or whosever orders of commutation and/or pardon get their own articles? Quis separabit? 21:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notable only for one event, not a notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination Withdrawn: Agreeing with other editors that educational institutions are notable...Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reclosed it as incorrect template was used, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saroj Institute of Technology and Management[edit]

Saroj Institute of Technology and 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)

Non notable technical institute. Fails WP:GNG... Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as a degree-awarding school, we keep those regardless. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, educational institutions high school or above are assumed notable if they can be proven to exist. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ozoti̇te Smart Eji̇fe[edit]

Ozoti̇te Smart Eji̇fe (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)

Originally PRODed this, but then discovered it had been deleted that way in the past and then recreated, so taking it here. This is a non-notable player who does not play in a fully professional league (I'm not actually sure if the team exists, his page seems to be the only Google result I can find.) As such, he fails WP:NFOOTY and I can find not references that satisfy WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn't pass speedy criteria. This isn't an article about a totally unremarkable person: there is at least some claim of notability, and although it's a BLP, it's not completely unreferenced. I completely agree that it should be deleted, though. If the club articles existed I'd recommend redirecting it. --Slashme (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources Spiderone 08:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solodev[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Solodev (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)

We had an article on this software/company from 2007 until this August, when it was PRODded on the basis of a notability concern. The current form was then submitted as a draft and languished in AfC for a while. Although there is coverage in local press and some other sources, I don't think the company meets WP:CORP, but at the request of the creator I've moved the draft to mainspace and nominated it for deletion to get a wider consensus. – Joe (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: Yes, there is local press on the company because it's based out of Orlando so it's covered by Orlando media because it's a major tech company in Orlando. It's also written about in Georgia, California, Philadelphia, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Las Vegas. The company is also featured in national publications like Inc. 5000, TechRepublic, ITBriefcase, ZDNET, and NetworkWorld.com, as well as industry specific publications like CMSCritic and CMSWire, not to mention being listed on the Amazon Web Services Marketplace. —comment added by mattmclaren (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP: Mike here from CMS Critic, we've covered Solodev for a long time, they are not only a worldwide company with an established CMS, they also recently won an award from us based on our readers choice as Best Cloud CMS. While I understand Wikipedia's desire to reduce spammy pages, this simply isn't one of them. I'd be happy to discuss further if required. — Cmscritic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
• KEEP: I don't really see how notability is even an issue here. I'm in DevOps so I think I can speak to the notability of enterprise software. This company is a long term Amazon Web Services Partner and first web content management system built for AWS, they're an Inc. 5000 multi-million dollar software company, they're competing with WordPress, Sitecore, Sitefinity, and doing well according to their revenues in Inc. 5000. Much smaller web content management systems are on Wikipedia. I say Keep. — Webdevops (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC) (UTC). WP:SOCKSTRIKE — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) The above users all appear to have been canvassed off-wiki. Please be aware that this is not a vote, it is a discussion amongst editors on whether to keep the article based upon Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In this case the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability, which in brief states that we can only cover topics that have been the subject of significant, in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Arguments based on personal opinions or achievements of the company that are not reflected in third party coverage will carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus by the closing administrator. – Joe (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've notified the AfC reviewers who previously declined this draft about this AfD. – Joe (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The keep !voters look like SPAs. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. With all due respect to Mike from CMS Critic, "Solodev, winners of our "Best Cloud CMS" award are pleased to announce [...]" does not strike me as independent coverage - at best that's a rehashed press release, full of superlatives. Huon (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Checkuser note: Mattmclaren and Webdevops are  Confirmed sock puppets.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Amazon Web Services is notable , but not every Amazon Web Services Partner is notable. WordPress is notable , but not everyone who competes with it is notable. It's only written about in industry publications that try to cover everything in the field, notable or not. Such trade publicationsare very valuable for those in the field, but they do not show notability . DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not only was I the PRODer but I also declined the AfC, because it's quite clear this is all PR and any attempts make it otherwise still become PR, that's damning enough for us and our policies explicit suggest deletion. SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as current article text focuses on product catalog than insights into the company. Better rewritten ... Devopam (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Local sources don't establish notability for companies. Other sources are not independent. I was unable to find independent sources elsewhere. ~Kvng (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - it seemed a bit, shall we say, unusual, to move a draft to mainspace just to AFD it. But It seems it was agreed to[20], even if the drafter may not have understood what a bad idea that was. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you have suggested? It was shaping up to be yet another one of the perpetually submitted and declined drafts that clog up AfC. I tried advising the author not to re-submit it but clearly they weren't happy to follow that advice. At the end of the day AfC is an optional process. It felt bitey to insist that my word on its notability was final, or to try and hide the fact that the author could simply move it to mainspace themselves at any time. So rather than going through the motions and winding up here anyway, I cut straight to AfD. – Joe (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• RE-DRAFT - this draft should of never been moved to mainspace. It can be worked on back in Draft space until such time as notability is better established. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator of the draft explicitly asked me to move it to mainspace, and is now indef blocked for using sockpuppets. I don't see it being worked on further. I think it would be better to reach a more conclusive consensus on whether the company is notable or not. – Joe (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Joe. The topic is either notable or it is not. Let's finish our notability assessment. ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes Solodev notable is that they are among the first, if not the first, CMS to be based on AWS Cloud. They have customers internationally on this, even in Denmark /Janus Boye

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burak Oguz Saguner[edit]

Burak Oguz Saguner (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)

Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. The festivals that the person has won awards in are minor, and in the case of the Canberra Short Film Festival, not even in the top category. Secondary source mentions are passing in nature. agtx 20:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable director of photography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete would not take much more to scrape over I think. Just a bit TOOSOON at the moment. Aoziwe (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Flanaess. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk Wars[edit]

Greyhawk Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Flanaess. Though, if any reliable, non-primary sources can be found to corroborate the information present in the article on the event's real-life background and reception, it may be worth keeping. However, I was not able to find anything during my searches, so I have to recommend a Merge at this point. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I agree with 64.183.45.226. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Romero[edit]

Victor Romero (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 not to meet our criteria for notability. Has started a cable channel which we've determined to be non-notable, and appears to have done nothing else of note. Two hits on Google News, of which one is PR Newswire. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article was previously longer; it's been reduced by removal of (a) copyright violations, (b) WP:BLP violations and (c) some unreferenced content. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find no evidence of notability for this person. Sources I find are all press releases or affiliated to a business on behalf of which he's arranged a deal. The article about the Bonjour America organization was itself deleted as non-notable. Largoplazo (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. The one reference is a four-sentence page about him on a web site which describes its purpose as to "highlight moves and accomplishments of Latinos in the media and news about the industry" - i.e. to promote or publicise them. That four sentence page does not come anywhere near to showing notability. A Google search for just "Victor Romero" produces almost entirely hits about other, more notable, people of that name. Adding various attempts at disambiguation to the search produces nothing of any value. For example, from a search for "Victor Romero" Bonjour the first page of hits are the page cited as a reference, his Facebook account, a laudatory page about him on the web site of his company, his Twitter account, this Wikipedia article, a Wikipedia article about his company (which has been deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonjour America Media Group), and three Linkedin accounts for other people of the same name (which for some reason Google lists even though they don't mention "Bonjour"). The next page of hits is no better. A Google search for "Victor Romero" "New Line Television" is even worse: it produces a grand total of one hit, namely this Wikipedia article. "Victor Romero" "New Line TV" gives ten hits, none of them providing evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There isn't one good secondary source available for this. As the company was deemed to be non notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonjour America Media Group, I doubt the President would be notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Flanaess. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stonehold[edit]

Stonehold (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 does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Flanaess. Yet another fictional location with no notability. If some reliable sources can be found to support any of the information here, then a Merge would be appropriate, but there are none present in the article, and I can not find any while searching, so a Redirect seems the most fitting for now. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural Keep given there's been no listed deletion basis of why this is of concern (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dávid Korányi[edit]

Dávid Korányi (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)

inaccurate Dkoranyi (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Korányi may not be notable, but a better researched reason for deletion needs to be given than this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the article does need better sources, being the top national security advisor to the prime minister of a country is a high enough level office to pass notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The reason given that the article should be deleted was because it's "inaccurate". The article looks to be based upon the biography (mid page) at Atlantic Council, where is is currently a director - with other citations added for good measure. I am not finding that the information is inaccurate, but I am not finding a lot of information about him, either. I am searching by the name in the article title + David Koranyi, which is more successful. A lot of the things that I am finding are that he's a contributor (CNN) or profiles for him as a speaker or contributor to published works, but not a comprehensive article about him.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - No valid rationale for deletion given. Carrite (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (closing it early per WP:SNOW). Huon (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Square Nebula Explanation[edit]

Red Square Nebula Explanation (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)

Contested WP:PROD, so wasting everyone's time doing this the long way round. To repeat my original prod rationale, Obvious content fork of Red Square Nebula, created because the creator didn't like the existing version of that article but wasn't allowed to change it to his preferred wording. Wikipedia isn't Google Knol; when there's a dispute over the wording of an article, we don't host multiple versions of that article and let the reader upvote their favorite. All that aside, this is a fairly obvious of WP:SYN, since none of the references claim that this nebula is created by electrical pinches in Birkeland currents. The purported justification for contesting the proposed deletion was "There is a clear reference, reference 5, where it is explained that"—I'll leave it readers to judge for themselves how reliable Holoscience.com is as a source. ‑ Iridescent 19:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)  ‑ Iridescent 19:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent claims that I was not allowed to change an article to my preferred wording; this is not true, I was attempting to add extremely relevant content with references, but my changes were constantly deleted and called names such as "fringe" and "bizarre". There was not explanation as to why valid information was being deleted by what were clearly veteran Wikipedia editors, only the name calling. When I attempted to question them on why they were removing valid information and discuss the information itself, they made it personal saying they would block me, and the information. Iridescent also mistakenly claims above that that there is no reference to "since none of the references claim that this nebula is created by electrical pinches in Birkeland currents".. now he is changing it to dispute reference 5. It is also mentioned in reference 4. Reference 5 was from a lecture given at the University of Maryland; you can view the speech at around 31 minutes in. From what I have provided, there should be no valid reason for not allowing this information to be posted. I feel like I am the victim of Wikipedia heavyweights, that just want to throw their weight around and silence valid content, even if they don't like it. If you are denying plasma and electric pinches and Birkeland currents, you are denying reality, as those have been proven long ago, Birkeland having won a nobel prize. To envision an electric pinch, or z-pinch in a Birkeland current does not take much imagination once you understand what is going on. To try and imagine it when you have been taught, wrongly, that stars are powered by fusion your whole life, is definitely difficult and painful. Either way, yes, let us leave it to readers to judge for themselves how reliable science journals are, when they are still teaching fusion, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Hhowardroark (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what Wikipedia is. We do not care whether what we say is right or not; we exist only to summarize what the current mainstream opinion is on any given topic. (If Wikipedia had existed in Copernicus's day, our cosmology articles would be squarely geocentric.) If you have a view that isn't the one which dominates the mainstream literature, there are any number of appropriate websites for you to promote it, but we're not one of them. ‑ Iridescent 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an obvious WP:POVFORK. This is an encyclopedia that follows accepted science rather than leading it, so, even if this theory is true and a great scientific breakthrough, we don't say so until it has been accepted by the scientific community. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC): Thank you very much for clarifying what Wikipedia is. I had no idea. I am sure that the majority of the readers of Wikipedia would like to know that information as well, and it really should be published as a disclaimer on the top or bottom of all of your pages, that you don't care whether what you say is right or not; it is only a consensus of mainstream opinion. I cannot imagine this site getting much funding with that as the tag line for getting donations. Either way, I sincerely appreciate your candidness in this matter. If having a consensus is a requirement, then would it be possible to change the article title to just say Red Square Nebula, Electric Universe Theory Explanation, or something similar; this would meet the requirement for consensus, because it is stating that it is a theory, which it is, and everyone can agree on that. You can either merge it with the other article or continue on its own. I would prefer not to merge with the other article, as the other article does not say anything, it just says they don't know what causes it; the scientific community does have a consensus that they have no idea what-so-ever could be causing the Red Square Nebula... yet somehow says they don't think it is the electric universe theory? Please explain. Have you provided any references that the electric universe theory has been disproved. Apparently the University of Maryland is extremely interested, as are others all over the Earth. Scientific consensus would actually require constant polling of scientists; do you have any references that you polled the entire scientific community and that they have listened to the electric universe theories and have stated they are wrong and not believable? I only see about two references in the Red Square Nebula article that just say it was discovered, and they don't know what caused it... maybe we should tell them. I would love to hear your thoughts on this, even in terms of just getting a general consensus of the scientific community on this topic, and how to go about that, or if you already did go about it, could you tell me when it was done, and what the results were. Was it this month, or last year, or a decade ago? Were the results close, with say 49% believing it, 51% not believing? And who was polled, was it one scientist's paper in a journal or article? I know you are saying it is quantity of believers in something, not quality, so please show me the quantity. Awaiting your thoughts. Thanks.Hhowardroark (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the link which appears at the bottom of all 60,663,652 pages on Wikipedia explaining exactly what Wikipedia does and how it operates, which leads in turn to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which explains our policies on undue weight and fringe theories? (I particularly advise reading this section.) Or possibly the first, very large link on our main page, which gives a more general view of Wikipedia's purpose and mechanisms? Or possibly Wikipedia:Five pillars, heavily linked throughout the site, which explains Wikipedia's non-negotiable core policies and is the head of a tree from which you can access all our other key policies? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and we make no secret of what our purpose is and how we aim to achieve it. ‑ Iridescent 21:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for responding to the first part of what I wrote. I am more interested in the second part about how you determine consensus, and whether I can post the entry as a theory. If you have say you need a scientific consensus, can you show me how consensus is determined, or is it just your opinion on the scientific consensus?Hhowardroark (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A further note on reading the 5 pillars; I see nothing about scientific consensus; however I do see pillar #2:

In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view".

And then pillar #5, there are no firm rules. #2 does say it needs reliable sources, and I did provide plenty of those, that show there are people from Universities that believe this theory... so I don't understand what the problem is; you also seem to be breaking pillar #4, being open and welcome to newcomers. Not only that, you keep using the pronoun we; when you say "we", do you mean editors of Wikipedia? Because if so, I am part of that we now to. Shouldn't you be saying I, or do you speak for me now too?Hhowardroark (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When we (yes, we refers to all Wikipedia editors, or at least those who follow Wikipedia's policies) speak of consensus on Wikipedia, it doesn't have anything to do with scientific consensus; it is solely consensus among Wikipedia editors about many things. See WP:CON for more info. Additionally, while WP:NPOV is a core Wikipedia policy, it's augmented by guidelines like WP:FRINGE, which says that especially minor viewpoints should not be presented in a equal light with widely accepted ones (see WP:FALSEBALANCE, part of NPOV). As far as I can tell, your sources don't show that this is anything but a fringe theory. In fact, the sources you have that even mention this theory are by or in reference to figures like Wal Thornhill (a physicist who eschews math, [21]) and Tom Wilson (who has a PhD in plant physiology). Additionally, the sources appear to be either published by the figures themselves ([22]; see WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:RSSELF) or heavily associated with the Electric Universe movement ([23] and [24]; the essay WP:INDEPENDENT has some points on why affiliated sources are problematic). None of these appear to be reliable sources to me. clpo13_(talk) 22:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If I click on the scholar link and get nothing, then look at the sources and see no RS that actual discus the theroy I have to wonder.Slatersteven (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete shouldn't even require a discussion Lipsquid (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an obvious POV fork with poor sourcing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete "all stars being powered by electric currents in space". oy. obvious FRINGE POV fork. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with other posters, this is not serving a useful purpose. Ultra fringe theory, terrible sources, this article has almost nothing going for it. --Krelnik (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:POVFORK, too poorly sourced to be integrated into the main article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' Yeah, this is pretty clearly bizarre fake science crap. It's pretty fringe, even compared to most fringe theories. Also, it's a WP:POVFORK. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) ^{Happy Holidays} 16:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' Obvious nonsense is nonsense. Roxy the dog. bark 18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile on Delete per PROFRINGE and NPOV. As just about everyone has noted it's a POV content fork intended to promote a fringe pseudo-scientific theory. On a side note, I would encourage Hhowardroark to read the guidelines that other editors have linked in their comments before doing anymore editing on controversial topics like this. This is intended as the friendliest advice as I have no doubt that they are well intentioned. But well intentioned editors who are unable to abide by the community's guidelines and policies get blocked with depressing regularity. Please take a deep breath and step back for a bit while you get your bearings here. We need good editors, but we also need them to understand how we work. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on problems of establishing independent notability of the theory. I think it might be possible to maybe establish notability of Wal Thornhill, and it would certainly be possible to include information on his beliefs in an article on him, but not so far as I can see for a standalone article. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a fringe theory, which even if valid should be at Red Square Nebula. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POVFORK. The article is clearly unbalanced towards the given fringe/pseudoscientific theory. Joshualouie711 (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maxcess International[edit]

Maxcess International (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)

evidence for existence, and nothing more. Utterly trivial awards. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DGG: searches only yield very trivial mentions or press releases, nothing that could be construed as a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability. Appable (talk | contributions) 19:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the clear advertising we all know so well and WP:NOT applies like always, that's all we need for delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Veras Retail[edit]

Veras Retail (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)

zero evidence for notability . The references show existence and nothing more. Local business dailys are a place to publish PR, not news. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as corporate spam; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is nothing remarkable about this subject that gives it the chance to be on this encyclopedia. A search online does not yield much either. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed, a WP:BEFORE search reveals very little. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Mkdw^talk 08:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dipendra Singh Airee[edit]

Dipendra Singh Airee (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:NCRIC as the subject has not played in a first-class, List A or T20 match. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly doesn't meet WP:NCRIC. Recreate if and when he does. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet notability gequirements for critcket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyanamukaaka[edit]

Kyanamukaaka (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 doesn't make the case that this sub-county is notable in its own right. We already have an article on Masaka. The existence of primary schools does not establish notability. This doesn't even say that the place is in Uganda. If it were to be kept, it would need to be blown up and started over. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, obviously, per WP:GEOLAND, and if it doesn't say what country it's in would it be so difficult for the nominator to add that to the article rather than whinge about it? This is supposed to be a collaborative project. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article doesn't say that it is a legally recognized place. Legally recognized places are ipso facto notable, but it doesn't even say that. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Much more important than whether the article says whether this is a legally recognised place, such as a municipality or subcounty, is whether reliable sources say so. Our coverage of Uganda and other African countries is abysmal, and it won't improve if people keep nominating articles about such obviously notable subjects for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And, despite the available sources being more important than the article content, this does say that this is a sub-county, which is a legally recognised place. I try not to take notice of the identity of deletion nominators, since the strength of argument is much more important that the identity of the person making that argument, but I couldn't help noticing that you seem to make a habit of calling for deletion of articles about subjects that are not related to the Anglophone West. We have enough problem with systemic bias here without editors going out of their way to exacerbate it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Call to delete based on wp:TNT reveals that the nomination is simply wp:DISRUPTIVE. --doncram 20:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Learning from failure[edit]

Learning from failure (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 creator contested PROD. This is a pure WP:OR essay that fails WP:NOTESSAY. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSELFHELP, which should open two tabs, one with WP:NOTESSAY and the other with WP:NOTHOWTO. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, we do have the alias WP:NOTADVICE, which this would seem to be a prime example of. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. as obvious advertising/promotion. — foxj 16:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oonfun[edit]

Oonfun (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 of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Fails WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Routine class-action case, plus WP:COI issues, as the creator of the article in the plaintiff in the case. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I didn't immediately realize that this had been moved to Educational Service Workers before the AfD was complete. I've gone ahead and deleted that page as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case no. 16CV300[edit]

Case no. 16CV300 (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)

Court case that has petititoned for review at a higher court - which is yet to say if it will accept it. No indication of wide significance. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. noq (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Noq, thank you for allowing the opportunity to present the significance of these issues. This class action is very important to a large number of unemployed people in Georgia. Here in Georgia, if GDOL suspects you are connected to education in any way, you are automatically denied UI! When GDOL did this in 2012 with a rule change, he was forced to pay back $8M to more than 30,000 people! That's a lot of money! And a lot of people! But in 2015 the law was changed to do the same thing. Other states are looking on at the precedent and this issue has nationwide significance! If Georgia gets away with the unconstitutional denial of UI, other states will try the same thing. I have done a LOT of research and I have included references on my page which everyone can use to inform themselves and understand the situation. Many people say it's too complicated for them to understand, so just ask me if you have any more questions. Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebekahalnablack (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would also like to point out other similar articles such as the one on Trump University (sued because the students got neither Trump nor a University). I come to wikipedia all the time to research court cases. One reason Wikipedia enjoys it's popularity is because it contains so much great information! My goal is not to undo that by diluting your great product! I want to add an article of value and I believe I have done so according to WP guidelines. In terms of WP:NOTNEWS, I have to disagree that this would NOT better qualify as news. It is an encyclopedic article examining an issue of great importance to over 30,000 people in Georgia. A lot of money is involved, especially if other states adopt these laws. What do you think? Is it significant to you? signed rebekah black — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebekahalnablack (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out the multiple valid sources that find this topic significant: The Patch (Athens, GA newspaper), ReadingRoom.law.gsu.edu, workforcesecurity.doleta.gov, senatepress.net. I could add more references if you would like? I'd like to mention that Congress Rep. John Lewis letter to Butler is part of the evidence. Further, I want to clear up the fact that the court HAS accepted the case. It is filed and pending a decision. Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Noq. In light of the validated many 3rd party sources finding this case significant, could you please remove the nomination for deletion or let me know how I could further add value to this article. Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The sources given, are to peachcourt.comm that requires a login to read - I cannot comment on what is hidden behind the login, the 3 references to an a server without a name is not a WP:reliable source - I cannot associate it with anyone that could be reliable, the other references predate the legislation that this case is about - so cannot be used to establish this case as notable. Most court cases are known by the the names of the litigants involved rather than a court assigned number which makes searching for coverage hard to do - you might want to put that in the article as it would help anyone reviewing this try to find significant coverage in reliable sources. noq (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shawn in Montreal! Welcome to the world of law in Georgia! :)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I took out the 'server without a name".. gone. Also, the peachcourt.com has a free and easy login. Please register for a login as that is the way to access cases through court.

Looking at the site, it seems that peachcourt just lists all cases - it does not help to establish notability, merely existence. Therefore, you have no relevant sources at all. noq (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's existance is relevant. but i will provide more references tomorrow. Rebekahalnablack

In terms of references that "pre-date" these issues, I beg you to reconsider. These issues are the same, first it was the rules now it is the legislation. This is all part of the same elephant, I have to show you the legs and the tail and the face to show the whole picture. Also I can add current references! Please just give me till tomorrow! Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Totally run-of-the-mill civil court case. Not in a precedent-setting court, no judicial decision rendered. Cases like this are a dime a dozen, and there's no reason to think this one is any more notable than any other. agtx 22:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HI Agtx, thanks for your comment. Unfortuneatley, many people give up on the 3rd appeal. The courthouse handling this case stated they only get 1 if that kind of case like this per year. Please understand it is precedent -setting in that the many other states are looking on to see if they can get away with this too. User talk:Rebekahalnablack

Alright, maybe this article belongs under Wikileaks lol. Finding tons of reliable 3rd party sources before the scandal breaks is a lot more challenging than writing it up after the fact. Maybe this article is premature and I leave it to your decision. User talk:Rebekahalnablack Thank you! —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:MILL, no indication of notability. TJRC (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unless you were denied ui due to being a ESW and didn't know why! this website explains why if you understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebekahalnablack (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A class action involving more than 30,000 people is not wp:Mill. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

A previous case involved 30,000 people - I don't see anything here showing this case involves that many. I don't even see who the primary litigants are. noq (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just registered on the PeachCourt site so I can look at some of the details. It appears that the plaintiff is the creator of the article and there does not appear to be any press coverage - very strange for a large class action case. 16:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi yes, I am the creator and plaintiff. There was no coverage of Trump University class action until Trump settled for $25M. Every class action has to start somewhere. There is plenty of press coverage from the last 3 years because this issue has been brewing since then. Please click on some of the links in the article to see press coverages since 2012. By the way, I have shared this wikipedia article with the lawyers for the opposing side, their contacts found under PeachCourt. It doesn't appear the opposing side wishes to participate in the wiki... unless u guys are them! ;) Rebekahalnablack (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already seen the references to previous cases, and I dismissed them as not relevant to the notability of THIS particular case. Wikipedia is NOT a place for you to pursue your case and requires WP:significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. Case listings are not significant coverage - where is the coverage of THIS case? I did ask previously for you to state the litigants involved but you did not do so - hiding your WP:conflict of interest until it was pointed out. Please do not use Wikipedia as a WP:soapbox. noq (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I do apologize for the misunderstanding. I never attempted to hide anything. I use my full real name Rebekah Alna Black. Who are you Noq? Are you a lawyer specializing in UI in Georgia, USA? Please don't hide behind a fake name and condemn an issue you don't understand. Anyone is welcome to contribute to this article. I have asked lawyers from the opposing side, and you are welcome to contact them, too. Their contact is under peachcourt. I repeat that the news sources are relevant to this case. This issue has been a brewing here in Georgia and is very relevant to those denied UI. I am beginning to suspect you are a lawyer from the other side hiding under a fake name. Please tell us who you are. Rebekahalnablack (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have still not provided any reliable sources to THIS case - the references from before the legislation that this case is about cannot be used to establish this case as notable. And a brief look at my edit history should be enough to show that I am not part of the defence in this case - indeed I cannot think why they would bother with this article as it will not have any bearing on the court case. You may be using your real name but this has never been mentioned in the article as being YOUR case. Please read up WP:notability, WP:significant coverage and WP:reliable sources as well as the WP:COI article that you have already been pointed at. Wikipedia is not meant as a means of publicising your case - use the local media in Georgia for that. You have repeatedly claimed that the sources exist but you seem very reticent to actually provide any. noq (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good points. Thanks for pointing me towards those links and I think I understand your position. However, I still stand behind the fact that those resources refer to this case as in what is going on for UI in Georgia. My intent is to provide information on the UI situation in Georgia for educational service workers that may come to wikipedia to understand why they were denied. It is not to make money lol or win the case which could take years or advertise news. If you feel it would be more appropriate to wait until someone else writes the wp article in 5 years, I understand and support that decision. However, please consider writing an article to explain to the thousands of affected Georgians why you pulled the content down. Will this discussion at least remain for them to navigate by? The content I have posted is neutral and can be verified, but please do as you will, and I support WP best practices! Rebekahalnablack (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing :p I just wanted to clarify the "cases" are the same in that the people involved are the same, the memos sent are the same, the rules and laws involved are the same, the people places and things are all the same! Are you saying this should Just be an article about the 2012-2013 incident? Because I like your points and maybe this should be an article on the past instead of the present? Please let me know if these changes sound good, we could call the article Educational Service Workers or something? Rebekahalnablack (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ya!!! This is looking much better! Hi five noq! We make a great team.. thanks so much for the help. Rebekahalnablack (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And still you miss the point. Your rename and edit of the article looks to have changed it into a WP:COAT. You start with an obvious dictionary definition and then spend the rest of the article discussing the history of a dispute. noq (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, it is not a dictionary definition, it is a legal definition, as defined under Georgia law. And the law has history to it! In this article, what is the coat and what is the hook? What is the rack? Rebekahalnablack (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article does not indicate how this court case is notable per WP:GNG, that is, which reliable sources such as national news organizations have given it substantial (not only passing) coverage.  Sandstein  18:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What we really need is a series on this law. Educational Service Contractors being the next article.. Rebekahalnablack (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per Sandstein.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 01:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Dale[edit]

Jason Dale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability in sources that meet WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE. Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY as MVP of lower-level All-Star Game does not meet #4 (he is not a First Team All-Star in any season, he just played in an All-Star Game and happened to play well in that game). Yosemiter (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: It only has one RS which is this blurp. But still insufficient. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: hockeydb.com is a reliable source for statistics, but not one that supports a subject's notability. Ravenswing 17:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Another of the several hundred dubious articles created by the infamous Dolovis, for which he received a community ban from new article creation, and which has caused hundreds of hours of work for dozens of editors in cleaning up the mess. A hallmark of Dolovis' oeuvre is to conflate a superficially noteworthy "honor" into something meeting notability standards, and that's the case here, where a MVP citation in a single low-minor league game is the only claim to fame this journeyman minor leaguer had. It wasn't enough to gain notice sufficient to meet the GNG, and neither was the rest of the subject's career. Fails every iteration of NHOCKEY, then and now. Ravenswing 17:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erick E[edit]

Erick E (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 references, one chart entry is a collaboration, the second is unverified. Fails the WP:MUSIC criteria on sourcing. Karst (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am unable for find reliable independent sources that establish notability. (However, I recognize that there may be non-English sources out there that I wouldn't be able to identify.) Slideshow Bob (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GetBadges[edit]

GetBadges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can find no independent, reliable, secondary sources on the web to establish notability, as the WP:GNG advises. All the results are just the company's own promotional material. There are definifly no multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, so it fails the WP:WEBCRIT. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The only source provided by the author is a cursory mention of the product. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 15:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 15:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 15:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In fact I considered speedily deleting it. No evidence whatever of notability, and the article also looks rather like an attempt to promote its subject. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:PROMO and it definitely doesn't pass basic notability. Reads more like an idea than an encyclopedia page and there is little identifying what it actually is. Also can we add Getbadges to this as well since its a redirect to this page or will that go away upon deletion? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete I found...a lot of times people forgot to put a space between the words "get" and "badges", but nothing really. May just been too soon, since the company is only a year old, but if there is going to be a time, it's certainly not now. TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not substantially contested. Can be userfied, though not by me.  Sandstein  18:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scholastica Nigeria[edit]

Scholastica Nigeria (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 topic fails our notability policy on the basis that reliable independent sources could not be found aside education-related blogs —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I think it is rather appropriate that we do our best to develop an article than speedily nominating it for deletion(AfD). Clearly Scholastica Nigeria is notable as covered on search engine and would only need more references. And the educational blogs that was referred to are know to produce clear, consice and accurate educational information.

‎Mahveotm, kindly familiarize yourself with the WP:GNG essay. A subject is said to be notable when it is covered by multiple independent reliable sources, not search engines. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Oluwa2Chainz Thanks for the link I've re-read it to be sure the was nothing I missed the first time I did, and obviously Scholastica Nigeria scales the Notability requirement. As earlier stated this article just needs additional references which I might not be able to provide due to my busy schedules. You said "A subject is said to be notable when it is covered by multiple independent reliable sources, not search engines" but what makes up search engines results if not sometimes the INDEPENDENT RELIABLE SOURCES. Have a nice time editing!!!!Mahveotm (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userify to give user:Mahveotm a chance to find actual sources. Mahveotm, please see further note left on your talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• FDelete - Nn notable education programme. Fails GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Claims that the subject satisfies the GNG don't seem to be satisfactorily supported. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sherine Wells[edit]

Sherine Wells (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)

Unfortunately, holding a national record doesn't pass WP:NTRACK, and without that, this athlete doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Was de-prodded without explanation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I concur, simply nothing for actual sports notability and all that exists is the national claim. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG. Covered in at least [25] [26] [27], not including other trivial mentions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's clear to see she passes WP:GNG which overides WP:NTRACK. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, to be honest I thought I recognised the name, but unfortunately can't find evidence of Wells competing at the highest international level. He national record is as part of a relay team, so doesn't meet WP:NTRACK. The news coverage cited above is merely reports of competition results, there is no evidence of signifant attention to Wells as an individual, therefore she certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG either. Sionk (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - not sure how above editors are coming up with passing GNG - current sourcing does not show that, and the 3 sources listed above, one is a nice article (The Star piece), the other is a press release, and the third is a brief mention. This could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by the last AfD in G4 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommie Grabiec[edit]

Tommie Grabiec (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)

Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR. I find no independent sources giving him substantial coverage, any more than at the time of the previous deletion discussion about an article about him. Largoplazo (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5Wkids Outdoor Learning Area[edit]

5Wkids Outdoor Learning Area (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)

Almost a G11. Definitely not notable for more than a footnote within Augusta International Raceway South Nashua (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Was looking at this article ealier, agree it is not notable. Was going to research it more later on, when I had the chance to confirm my thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbmarshall Obama(talk • contribs) 13:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already in the main article on the raceway, which was, until 30 second ago, itself completely unsourced. But nothing worth mentioning that I found on the learning area. TimothyJosephWood 20:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - found evidence of existence [28] but nothing that speaks to notability. PhilKnight (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I know a bit about related programs from reading this article but absolutely nothing about the program itself. Postcard Cathy (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete a non-notable learning area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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