< 20 December	22 December >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Estonia–Finland relations. Sandstein 11:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finnic countries[edit]

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

There's no such concept. Therefore, there are very few if any academic sources that could back it up. It fails WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:RSSELF and WP:UGC. Looks more like a personal opinion with the references pointing to personal blogs or forum entries. – Sabbatino (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the page, I object:

- The references point to university publications or political history. This reference points to the letter of the President of Estonia Konstantin Päts to the Finnish embassy. This reference points to professor Tiit-Rein Viitso and the accreditation of Finnic studies in the University of Latvia. This reference from the University of Vienna uses the term "finnic states" This reference points to a scientific conference. This reference points to a book from 1911. This reference points to a library trace of a book with the term as it's title (soomesugu). This reference points to prime minister Andrus Ansip's talk in the Finnish embassy. JonSonberg (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four references don't even mention "Finnic countries", but are about archaic Estonian expression "soome sugu", which roughly translates to "Finnish/Finnic race" and probably means Baltic Finns. And it stands alone, not in wording "soome sugu countries" (as far I can access sources). Viitso uses expression "non-Finnic countries" and Laakso "Finnic states" and "Finnic countries". Both use those words casually, without any further discussion and it's meaning can only be guessed from context. So it doesn't met General notability guideline criteria: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. --Minnekon (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- If a page that lists islands by the front letter B exists in wikipedia, then Finnic countries obviously has the right to exist as well. The word Finnic exists and there are only two Finnic countries in the world. JonSonberg (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and articles about phenomena are fundamentally different things. Lists just list phemomena to make them more easy to find for readers, they don't discuss subjects. Potentially it is possible to turn current article into "List of Finnic countries", but it would be rather short list and it would require criterion of inclusion, that should come from reliable source, not just be made up. --Minnekon (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Google Books results from the URL above JonSonberg (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another casual mention of "Finnic countries" from 1909 book with apparently (I can't access full content) no further discussion what is meant by that. Definitely not modern states of Estonia and Finland as suggested by current version of article, because this segment of book is about prehistoric or medieval period. --Minnekon (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The wikipedia article Baltic Finns also mentions Finnic states in the abstract. Finnic states vs Finnic countries? I don't care but I personally think that "states" refer to political areas inside a federation or union. "Countries" is a better term. JonSonberg (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourceless expression from another Wiki article is not reliable source. --Minnekon (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- There is a lot to write about the Finnic countries. It is unfair to tag an article for deletion a day after it's creation. They operate together in the middle east, they fund finnic and finno-ugric research together, they support the finno-ugric minorities living inside the borders of Russia, they fund joint Finnic medical research and run medical exchanges. Which can all be written about on this page. Then again "Finnic countries" is not the same as Finland-Estonia relations, because the countries also operate independently from one another, but for the same cause. JonSonberg (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before detailed description of various activities of Finland and Estonia we need to identify that there really is notable concept of "Finnic countries" and then that those activities are connected to that concept. --Minnekon (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to all university research references, the president of one of the countries using the term "soomesugu riigid" is notable enough. JonSonberg (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any expression used by some head of state can be turned into article? How exactly it passes Notability requirements? But anyway, who is this president and where he says that, so we could assess it? If it's supposed to be above-mentioned letter from Konstantin Päts, then could you please provide whole sentence where it's mentioned, because I'm not able to find expression "soomesugu riigid" not by reading nor by word search. --Minnekon (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The Helsinki to Tallinn Tunnel will unite the two Finnic capitals into a common Finnic economic region JonSonberg (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion would go against the Wiki philosophy of Inclusionism JonSonberg (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baltic Finns, which seems to be the recognized version of this concept. I did a search of both JSTOR and Google News, and neither showed anything. Google Books showed a couple results, but I don't think those few results can demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But how can Baltic Finns be the same as Finnic countries and their cooperation? Because Baltic Finns talks about people not countries. It's like swedes vs. the nordic countries. JonSonberg (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Baltic Finns article itself says and I quote: "The bulk of the Baltic Finns are ethnic Finns and Estonians (more than 98%), who reside in the only two independent Finnic nation states – Finland and Estonia". Yes there should be a Finnic states / Finnic countries article. And I have also pointed to university references above and in the article. JonSonberg (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the president of one of the countries using the term notable enough? JonSonberg (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - One person claiming some fringe theory is totally not enough. 100 articles about this would mean it has some value, but not now when main sources are blogs or forum entries, which are not acceptable by Wikipedia standards (this also applies to your other edits in other articles). – Sabbatino (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Estonia–Finland relations which covers the exact same topic that this article aims to. I also couldn't find use of the term "Finnic countries" in Google, but Finland and Estonia have historically had very close relations, and many elements of their national cultures and languages are similar. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it should be merged as it's a concept pretty much made up by the creator of the article and just has stuff copied from other articles. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be acceptable, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Estonia–Finland relations; although the name "Finnic countries" has been essentially made up by the creator of the article, the concept is essentially merely a derivation of the idea of commonalities between Estonia and Finland (i.e., similar linguistic features, as referenced to in Finnic languages, and associated peoples). Few, if any, significant academic references to the concept "Finnic nations" in comparison to the aforementioned articles. Mélencron (talk) 00:34, 29 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) 09:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan at the 2015 Judo Grand Slam Tokyo[edit]

Nations at the xxx pages are usually reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. This one focuses on just one sport. Also, there is no lead and its a poorly constructed article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all For the above reason - but also they are all a rehash of a single source.　National results for events that are borderline notable themselves. Even there there is nothing demonstrating that Azerbaijan performed anywhere near notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - it is an example of proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left for dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per everyone above. 103.6.159.77 (talk) 07:20, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City of Melbourne Pipes and Drums[edit]

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

Lower grade band with no particular claim to notability. Ostrichyearning (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RS cited in article, my quick search fails to find any either DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found exactly one[1] significant piece about this organization in WP:RS, which doesn't support notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 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. czar 02:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Antonio Garza Mercado[edit]

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

Looks like it's been written by paid editor with perfect pic and associated company article at GM Capital. Doesn't seem to gell. Most refs point to trade sites. Possibly fails WP:BIO and the GM Capital possibly fails WP:ORG. Both the articles seem to be here to advance their business. scope_creep (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources beyond PR and social media. Written by SPA. No demonstration of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a PR piece. Everything seems so perfect in the article. His first project is not notable enough to have its own page. I find it interesting that the picture was deleted from commons due to being non-free,[2] then uploaded again the next day, as free use. lbmarshall (talk) 13:04, 31 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard W Turner[edit]

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

None of the sources cited are about Turner himself. The only thing in here that could potentially be notable is the tennis, but I can't find any sources to back that up. agtx 22:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Looks like it should/could be a notable subject but I cannot find independent / secondary references for the significant majority of the article. If someone can properly reference the article it would be good. Aoziwe (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete looks like blatant self promotional. Almost all of it is not backed with reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LibStar, WP:SNOW, and WP:NOTRESUME as a blatantly Not Notable. The sources are all PR stunts and self-created pieces. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 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 merge to npm (software). (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 02:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leftpad[edit]

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

This does not warrant its own article (is not notable) and might as well be a bullet point in the trivia section of npm Ysangkok (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to npm (software). There's coverage, but it's always in relation to npm: [3] from The Register, [4] from Quartz, [5] from ZDNet. The software isn't the notable thing here; it's the event. And I think the event is tied to npm. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NinjaRobotPirate: classic WP:1E. Kolbasz (talk) 21:42, 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. Sandstein 09:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of online interactive charts[edit]

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

I may well be wrong, but I don't feel that this belongs in an encyclopaedia. It seems to be a comparative list of charting products, and it is only referenced to the respective sites for those products. None of them appear to have an article on Wikipedia. One of the companies behind the products has an article (but this isn't shown in the article - the company site is linked instead). Peridon (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the author of this article has several times edited the article about that company that has an article, and that product appears to have the widest specification. Peridon (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT. "Online chart drawing tools" (a better title btw) is not a well-defined subject; if we include any tool that can generates drawings, the scope is way too large. For the record, there is no problem sourcing to the companies' website if the list is exhaustive and the websites unambiguously fall in the criteria for the list, but that is not the case here. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:04, 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 delete. A10. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is this reason for inequality[edit]

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

An essay, not an article Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 22:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be someone essay, screams of original research. Seasider91 (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is going to get speedy deleted.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 22:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A10; duplicates the scope of Social inequality, not a plausible redirect. --McGeddon (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. It's an essay created by a new user who doesn't yet understand the environment. Deb (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 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 no consensus. Opinions are divided, and the collective nature of this AfD makes it difficult to discern a consensus. If this is to be pursued further, I recommend individual renominations, beginning with the persons least likely to be considered notable enough for inclusion. Sandstein 09:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Satiacum Jr.[edit]

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

Faithless electors from the 2016 U.S. presidential election are not inherently notable. Coverage provided does not establish notability. These biographies were created due to WP:RECENTISM and all fail WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Per WP:NOTNEWS, they should not be articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They should all be shoved into a paragraph on the 2016 election, if that.—Chowbok ☠ 04:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Precedent set that faithless electors are notable. See Category:Faithless electors. Additionally, all these faithless electors (especially Suprun, Satiacum, and Chiafalo) received a large amount of media coverage. MB298 (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked through most of them. A number of them pass WP:POLITICIAN because they were state legislators, but others I saw don't pass GNG either and I'll nominate them later. I kept focused on 2016 at first. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think any decision to delete should be made in the next couple of months, in any case. This election was particularly contentious, and in the past 20 years the Electoral College in the US has become a hot button issue (at least around election times). Several people of varying political affiliations and levels of influence have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the system as it stands, and Wikipedia is a first (sometimes only) stop resource for people who are researching an issue. If, in a year or so, the relevance has died down, then deletion may be warranted. Dianaramadani (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like you want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We don't use Wikipedia to advocate for, say, abolishing the Electoral College. This is a discussion about the notability of the 2016 faithless electors, not a debate on the Electoral College. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suprun achieved notability by going public with his vote in advance; by publishing an article in The New York TImes about it; by becoming the subject of controversy himself relating to his past and the 9/11 disaster and a spotty, if not dubious, résumé; and by being the only known Republican elector to refuse to vote for Trump (the Ron Paul elector chose to remain anonymous; while a mention of Art Sisneros, the Republican elector who resigned rather than vote for Trump, is included in this entry). I agree with the above comment that "I don't think any decision to delete should be made in the next couple of months, in any case. This election was particularly contentious, and in the past 20 years the Electoral College in the US has become a hot button issue (at least around election times)." Personally, I would argue to keep this entry and at least some of the others for the time being, particularly since protests regarding this election are likely to carry on to Inauguration Day 2017 and perhaps beyond.

NicholasNotabene (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- @NicholasNotabene: Keep which ones? We need specificity here. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly, WP:BLP1E. 47.150.54.153 (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)— 47.150.54.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Consider merging with Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 -- if anywhere, at all. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources. In addition to the LA Times and Politico write-ups already in the article, which are expressly about Satiacum, you have this ABC news story about Satiacum, this Seattle Times article about Satiacum and Brett Chiafalo, and additional, supporting coverage in numerous sources, including this and this and this, to give just three. Regardless of other notability qualifications, Satiacum meets our general notability standards. Just take a look through Google News.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Regarding BLP1E, Satiacum achieved fame by declaring that he might not vote for Clinton, but coverage has also discussed his activism.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- @3family6: this is a multi-article AfD, and your comments don't account for all of them, only Satiacum and Chafalo. What do you have to say about the others? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the other elector articles:

Keep Christopher Suprun - in addition to the very extensive coverage regarding his promise to vote for Kasich rather than Trump, there is extensive coverage of the controversy over whether or not he was a 9/11 responder.

Merge Esther John into the 2016 faithless elector article - no coverage of her as an individual.

Weak keep for Levi Guerra - extensive coverage of her as an individual. However, I'm not sure, per BLP1E, that this is enough to justify her inclusion. Personally, I think that she is notable, but I also have to ensure that community guidelines are followed. There is continued coverage of the legal case involving her and the other Washington faithless electors.

Weak keep for David Mulinix - same rationale as for Levi Guerra, minus the legal pursuing.

Weak keep for Bret Chiafalo - same rationale as for Guerra, and the continued coverage of legal pursuing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In response to the question posed by @Muboshgu:, I would suggest keeping the entries for Robert Satiacum Jr. and Chris Suprun, and rolling the other electors, Democratic and Republican, into those two entries. Satiacum is noteworthy for his continued tribal activism and for casting his vote for two persons entirely outside the political mainstream, while Suprun is noteworthy for being the sole (known) Republican elector to cast his vote for someone other than Donald Trump. In fact, mentions of Art Sisneros, the Republican elector who resigned (rather than vote for Trump), and of the unidentified Republican elector who anonymously voted for Ron Paul are already rolled into in the Suprun article. I have already elaborated above on why Suprun has more notoriety than most of the other electors. My underlying argument, however, is to look at each elector individually rather than treat them all en banc as if they were a single common phenomenon. They are not, even though it was the Clinton vs. Trump contest that brought the different phenomena, and disagreements, out into the open.

NicholasNotabene (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Robert Satiacum Jr, Delete all of the others. While I agree with the arguments for deleting the articles on most of the individual faithless electors, as they are notable for only one event, Robert Satiacum Jr is also notable for his radio show "Tribal Talk" and his activism. Satiacum also received coverage prior to the election for stating his plans to vote against Clinton,[6] and as NicholasNotabene stated, his votes were for people entirely outside the political mainstream.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all . considering the context of this particular eletion--this is a mater of history, not of temporary news coverage DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument doesn't take into account WP:BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does - WP:BLP1E is for when a person notable for one event will not remain particularly notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Christopher Suprun as the most notable of the crop; no opinion on the rest. bd2412 T 04:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG BobLaRouche (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on faithless electors of 2016. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx)))} 23:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I am not ready to argue about the local notability guideline for living people (I am from ru-wiki). At the least keep a redirect from Robert Satiacum Jr. to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. --Neolexx (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All - These should be component articles in a piece called Faithless electors in the 2016 American Presidential election, not individual biographies. Each and every one is deletable under BLP-1E. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all as suggested above. Bearian (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Robert Satiacum Jr. has received coverage of his radio show and activism as far back as 2011. So he isn't just notable for the 2016 election, though that alone I think would be enough.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plus to the comment above and to my initial "keep" it worth mention that he is listed at IMDb as a producer and actor. A movie of 2007 with him already here, some critics can be found way prior 2016 (example). --Neolexx (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:BLP1E, including Suprun and Satiacum, on the basis that other biographical details regarding Suprun and Satiacum are not sufficient on their own to demonstrate their notability independent of their role as faithless electors. Mélencron (talk) 00:26, 29 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dekay[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and as entirely lacking any real sources. I note that the image shows him performing before an audience of perhaps one hundred people. We are not a web host such as MySpace. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 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 Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spinnin' Premium[edit]

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

Not notable sub-label - redirect to Spinnin' Records. Karst (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google such as 1, 2, 3. - TheMagnificentist 06:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheMagnificentist, it's a notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google. 141.138.146.132 (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've found some new sources about the launch of Spinnin' Premium and added these to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fox Tanawa-Bamba (talk • contribs) 21:04, 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 speedily deleted by 78.26. Reason: "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, WSPR (amateur radio software)." (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WSPR (radioamatora softvaro)[edit]

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

Weird mixture of languages. Very hard to figure out what this says. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an Esperanto semi-translation of the existing article WSPR (amateur radio software). Since the title is not a likely search term on the English Wikipedia, probably qualifies for speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10 as a recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. Possibly the editor intended to post this on the Esperanto Wikipedia, where there's some existing related articles such as eo:WSJT (amatora radio).--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:A10 per Arxiloxos, and maybe WP:G7 as well per [7]. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:12, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) (3rd nomination). This apparently defunct fringe journal does not seem to be have much coverage in independent sources (and, no, Henry H. Bauer of AIDS denial fame does not count). Some of the sources cited such as the famous 1974 AAAS meeting are not even about the publication. Material can easily be merged over to other articles on the broader, more encyclopedic subject. As it is, this is just a leftover part of a walled garden of Velikovsky nonsense that Wikipedia has had over the years and we have been slowly weeding for lack of adequate sourcing that isn't dominated by fringe or unreliable sources. jps (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Weak delete~~Weak Keep ~~I am seeing a lot of sources, but not many that would pass RS, can someone provide some evidence this is a notable journal?~~Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK we now seem to have some sources the one I can check does seem to discus the magazine.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would reject Bauer out-of-hand as he seems to make common cause with pseudoscience and the book he wrote about Velikovsky, while better than others, does not rise to the level I would like to see in a reliable source. He is too credulous when it comes to obviously incorrect claims such as those offered by Velikovsky. Other than the Gordin source, all the rest of the truly close to WP:FRIND sources are just offering passing mention. jps (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be useful to refer to some third-party independent reviews of Bauer and/or his book, in order to better assess it, per WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE and WP:TALK#FACTS? --Iantresman (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you can find one who mentions Bauer's connection to Society for Scientific Exploration and his AIDS denialism, that would be good. I haven't found any, which is disappointing. jps (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be an association fallacy? Like trying to connect Newton to Occult studies, Nobel Prize winning physicist Hannes Alfvén to Plasma Cosmology, and Einstein to Pole Shift theory? The kind of sources I had in mind directly suggest that Bauer is unreliable, like we can do easily with Velikovsky (eg. "One can indeed legitimately call Velikovsky a pseudo-scientist in the sense that ..", Bauer 1984, and others too numerous to mention), although I am not aware of any of them retrospectively applying that to Velikovsky's earlier work in psychiatry. --Iantresman (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be association fallacy if the journal in question wasn't promoting pseudoscience. Bauer's promotion of pseudoscience makes him a WP:REDFLAG source for a journal that is promoting pseudoscience. If only pseudoscience-promoters seriously discuss a source, we generally rule that this does not qualify as a notable subject for an article at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the association fallacy make an exception for "pseudoscience". But we can cut short this "discussion" by simply having some sources that support this view. --Iantresman (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. The WP:BURDEN per WP:CHEESE is not on the person who points out the problem with the source to find yet another source that discusses the source. If the person who writes a book is a pseudoscience promoter, that's simply what they are. We aren't writing an article here, we are evaluating sources. jps (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete also. There needs to be a more robust description of notability. sure they had some readers, but so does my twitter account. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NJOURNALS nor WP:GNG. A brief mention in a self-published book (ref.11) doesn't count, and the rest of the references seem to be non-independent, not about the subject, or both. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a horrible article! Not only peppered with Prof. This and Prof. That, but also quite a lot of OR (I really laughed at ref 6) and then a whole load of "references" about an AAAS sumposium, without any evidence that this journal was even mentioned. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to find the following independent reliable sources. I've included Bauer on the following grounds that (a) reviews of the book are generally good (b) his views on Aids are irrelevant to his book on Velikovskianism, otherwise we'd have to question Newton for his views on the occult (c) I asked whether Bauer would be an issue, at WP:RSN and others thought not. I also declare that I am under a topic ban, and while I thought that "broadly construed" did not appear to extend here according to guidelines as no part of the article includes the banned subjects, another admin thought that it did, but let it go[8]. I also need to declare a potential conflict of interest, as I sell access to the contents of this periodical via my website catastrophism.com, though I have never made a profit, and it makes no difference to the sources provided. --Iantresman (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McAulay, R., "Velikovsky and the infrastructure of science", Theory and Society (1978) 6:313. doi:10.1007/BF01715454
Michael D. Gordin, The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe, "Chapter 6: Strangest Bedfellows", University of Chicago Press, 2012 (Amazon) Numerous mentions
Waldron, Ann (1980). "Velikovsky Lives!" Science Digest Special, Sept/Oct, p. 94. (sorry can't find an online link)
Henry H. Bauer, Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy], (1984) University of Illinois Press ([9])
David Morrison, "Velikoysky At Fifty" Skeptic Magazine, Volume 9 Number 1 Spring, 2001
C. Leroy Ellenberger, "Hysterical Velikovskians Flee Own Frankenstein-Mongoose!", in Dio, Feb 1997 (Ellenberger is considered reliable)
Gordon Stein, "The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal", Prometheus Books, 1996 (Stein would be considered a reliable source)
Michael W. Friedlander, "At the fringes of science", Westview Press, 1995 (Book is considered notable, according to his article)

Keep -- Sure, the subject matter is rubbish, but Velikovsky's views have been much discussed and WP needs to reflect that. It is possible that the article has been improved during this discussion, which makes some of the tags no longer appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It is possible that the article has been improved during this discussion...." No one has edited the article through this discussion. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. jps (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This has already run the gauntlet at AfD and the debate was closed as Keep. Notability is not temporary. Carrite (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notability as a journal is not limited to journals that support the scientific mainstream. I'f even argue that there's a special need for good NPOV coverage of the ones that do not, in order that people who encounter them will have objective information about their nature. DGG ( talk ) 09:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Capra III[edit]

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

Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:NDIRECTOR (he's been assistant director, not primary director). Although he is the grandson of Frank Capra, notability is not inherited. ... discospinster _talk 20:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NDIRECTOR and GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb is not a reliable source because it does not show that anyone cares about the person, it is meant to be a listing of everything, including many uncredited roles. Capra has never been a director, he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 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 redirect to Pecos League . -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

California City Whiptails[edit]

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

In the absence of any references, and in view of the fact that this team is not yet playing, and is not in the MLB organization, does not appear to be notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable just as any other professional baseball team, regardless of affiliation with MLB. The team's website is listed. Jamesmiko (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability criteria. A minor league team that has yet to take the field is not as notable "as any other professional baseball team". An organization's own website is irrelevant.--Rpclod (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the purpose of keeping were to list the team's website, that would be WP:G11. However, we can consider this article on its merits and use AFD rather than CSD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pecos League, where information about the team can be maintained until such point as the team itself becomes more notable. Spanneraol (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pecos League as Spanneraol suggests. Independent League teams are notoriously unstable, and there isn't any indication of notability yet. If and when they actually put a team into play, then they can be re-created. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how we can redirect to an article that doesn't mention them. DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, the team is mentioned in the article for the league. Spanneraol (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pecos League. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monterey Amberjacks[edit]

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

In the absence of references and in the absence of additional information other than the league (which is not part of the MLB system), does not appear to be notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable just as any other professional baseball team, regardless of affiliation with MLB. The team's website is listed. Jamesmiko (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Pecos League - Does not meet notability criteria. A minor league team that has yet to take the field is not as notable "as any other professional baseball team". An organization's own website is not verifiable, objective evidence.--Rpclod (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modified to agree with Spanneraol and Eggishorn. My only additional comment is that, even if and when a team is formed, suitable notability criteria must be met.-Rpclod (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pecos League until such time as more references can be identified. Spanneraol (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Makes no sense to delete the page of an announced team in an established league. Either additional information will be coming soon or the team will fold and the page can be deleted then. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pecos League as Spanneraol suggests. Independent League teams are notoriously unstable, and there isn't any indication of notability yet. If and when they actually put a team into play, then they can be re-created. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:13, 31 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 per BLP1E and BLPDELETE. This stems from a 2001 lawsuit initiated by Tom Cruise over an article in which the subject allegedly made certain claims. The subject denied having made those claims, and Cruise won a judgement but probably didn't pursue it. It could perhaps be added to the Cruise article, but that's a separate decision—it definitely should not be a BLP. I'm deleting under BLPDELETE because this is a BLP1E; the sourcing is tabloid news or other news organizations repeating tabloid news; and there is no good version to which I can revert. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bradford[edit]

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

This article is a biography of a living person which fails WP:PORNBIO. I have removed multiple unreliable sources from the article, including tabloids, what appear to be self-published blogs, and IMDB. I have also removed information sourced to dead links. What's left in the article is information about his lawsuit involving Tom Cruise. It frequently refers to tabloid journalism such as the Actustar, and there is little information about his professional career -- we have to consider WP:BLPGOSSIP as well. The subject has not received any industry awards or made any "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre". There are a few articles included in the article from BBC and CNN, but the BBC article also refers frequently to tabloids and the CNN article is more about the Cruise lawsuit, not the person. Mz7 (talk) 18:33, 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. MER-C 08:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITRS Group[edit]

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

Mostly WP:PROMO and no clear indication of notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete predominantly press releases dress up by news agencies, nothing evidently notable — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources has usual announcements and coverage of what an organization would do in its day to day running rather than anything remarkable and notable to have a Wikipedia article. Lacks WP:RS to establish notability. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 06:50, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Neistat[edit]

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

The article is detailed, but he only has some passing mention in few reliable sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article asserts notability based on his military service and career in Film and Television. The article makes several references to reputable sources (and has been updated with additional sources). He is a generally recognizable public figure and an decorated US service member. List of Military decorations based on a post to his personal blog and instagram (added source in article). Military records are not generally publicly available but it is a crime to claim some decorations under the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 so it is unlikely the post is inaccurate. I'm sure the article will be populated with more information and sources unknown to this editor. User talk:Delta245 19:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE article does not assert notability. He's a stuntman, a bit-part actor, and was in the military. Is that list of medals unusual? How would the reader know? I'd change my mind if it cited WP:RSs saying his decorations are sufficiently WP:PERSON ... richi (hello) 20:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the non-primary sources are about his brother Casey Neistat (a popular YouTuber). - TheMagnificentist 18:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The above is simply not correct. There are 2 references to his brother on the page and 1 of 13 sources listed links to a specific video brother's Youtube page that Dean helped create. The NY Post source reference gives credit to all 4 people involved in that particular video. User talk:Delta245 15:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Striking duplicate !vote. You can comment all you want, but only !vote per AfD.Natg 19 (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability as an airman under WP:MILPEOPLE, with a highest rank of captain and...fairly normal awards for a lot of service members after 15 years of war. Nothing approaching the nation's highest honors. Many small roles, but nothing to indicate he is more than simply a working stuntman. His brother...means literally nothing.

A lot of the sources are poor quality: his vlog, his brother's subreddit (which means less than nothing), his IMDB (probably completed by him). A lot of actual sources seem to be just passing mentioning. I'm not finding anything better myself really.

Sorry, but a lot of individually not-notable things does not add up to an notable thing. TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. You don't inherit notability - you don't become notable just because a film you were a stuntman in is notable. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too bit part to be notable as an actor, his stunts are also not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 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. MER-C 08:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yea Boi Productions[edit]

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

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

This article has been speedily deleted previously under CSD(A7). The author has then recreated the article, identical in every way - including the CSD template - and nothing has been changed. It's an article about a non-notable company and all references/citations are from blogs and Itunes. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No demonstration of notability, only self sourced, and worst of all up and down my watchlist in red and blue today! Roxy the dog. bark 18:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt if recreated again. Subject appears to be the dreamings of a kid who just graduated high school, considers whatever it is he is making in his dorm room a "studio album", and who credits himself on his blog for contributing to "the core sound of the genre". There barely anything online besides self-published material to indicate that this act even exists. The real shame here is that he put in all the effort to write a 4k word article that doesn't, and may never have a place on Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 19:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: This is an article that appears to be solely promotion. No notable sources, so an obvious GNG fail there. I would personally tag it as an WP:A7. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete/Counterclaim I find the comments listed here to be appalling, condescending, and just downright disrespectful. Do you honestly believe that just an artist is not "notable" --- in YOUR eyes only --- because the artist has not signed to a major label (he instead chose to create his own) and has not had a charting single (as I have previously said, he's only recently met exposure) that the artist is unimportant and does not deserve a Wikipedia page?? And by the way, there are LOTS of musicians, entertainers, and people who have pages who haven't graduated high school or have any education at all, so it is inappropriate to diminish notability based on education level. The genre was created by HIM so OBVIOUSLY he is the only one who could have contributed to the genre at this point. To say this article may never have a place on Wikipedia when it has obviously verifiable material when there are hundreds of articles on this website with a substantial lack of information and no sources whatsoever. If this page is deleted for "lack of notability" then it must be brought to attention that this website depends on user contributions and donations (including those of my own) to run. It would be different if this were an invite-only place like HuffPost, but apparently there would be no effort to even create a Wiki page if it were not notable in some way. Who are you guys to say what is and is not notable? Music is music, and by the mere fact that it exists, it is notable. So this page does NOT deserve to be deleted. Timkjones (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. How do you feel you meet these guidelines? Be specific and keep it short please. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very willing to change my !vote here, but obviously only if there is sufficient evidence provided. I have seen no sources that the WP:GNG - which is the overriding policy for notability of all articles. If you can show me some significant coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources of course, I will change my !vote. It is solely based on policy and what I have been able to find. WIth regards to the assertation of Music is music, and by the mere fact that it exists, it is notable I would ask you to read WP:WHYN. Notability here is not inherited - see WP:ITSA - we need evidence. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe that just an artist is not "notable" --- in YOUR eyes only --- because the artist has not signed to a major label (he instead chose to create his own) and has not had a charting single (as I have previously said, he's only recently met exposure) that the artist is unimportant and does not deserve a Wikipedia page?? Yes, that is exactly what I think. It's not a decision for all of time. If the artist manages to continue his fledgling career, and gain significant attention outside of his own social media, there is no reason he can't have an article eventually. But we do not make or keep Wikipedia articles based on our own subjective expectations of a person's potential when that potential fairly evidently hasn't yet come to fruition. TimothyJosephWood 13:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Counterclaim This quote from the guidelines: "Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted;" supports my claim. I understand that this artist has not received major attention yet, but these things come with time. This article was created to give people information about the artist, which all other Wikipedia articles are. It's not for promotion, this artist has obviously been promoting himself before the creation of this page. This article is still in the making and is continuously being edited/expanded.Timkjones (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you looked at the wrong guideline first - the General Notability Guidelines are effectively Wikipedia's Golden Rules. If the subject of an article doesn't meet them, the article will be deleted. That doesn't mean there can't be an article about you in the future, it just means that as of right now, it's too soon. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from User:Timkjones: I understand that this artist has not received major attention yet, but these things come with time. shows to me that this is a non-notable topic - at the moment. WP:TOOSOON definitely applies. To be notable, reliable coverage in major outlets is normally preferred. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No authoritative references are provided. Although the subject is interesting, nothing indicates notability..--Rpclod (talk) 23:42, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Habib Bhuiyan[edit]

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

Non-notable politician (party functionary) who failed to get his party's nomination for parliament. Non-notable former lecturer. Non-notable newspaper columnist. Acts as an (official?/unofficial?) party spokesperson on talk-shows.

Article was speedied by JamesG5 for failure to credibly indicate significance. Article author removed the speedy against instructions. PRODed by SwisterTwister, "Absolutely nothing here for WP:POLITICIAN." Promptly deproded by author without explanation. Tagged for notability by myself, a tag the author or an IP have removed four times in 48 hours, again without any explanation.

The first three cited sources are written by the subject. Then come primary sources, talk-shows on which he appeared. Finally there are reports that range in depth from merely saying he was at an event ("discussion was attended by", "spoke at roundtable", "who took part") to a brief sentence or paragraph quoting or paraphrasing something he said. It's unclear what makes the author think this guy is notable. Spokespeople for government or companies are often named in news reports. That doesn't make them notable. It's the organization they're speaking for that is notable. Worldbruce (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, and I planned to nominate given the sheer questionability here and there's literally nothing here at all for the notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete not yet notable, may be in the future but is not at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is an automatic pass of our inclusion standards for political figures, and the sourcing isn't strongly enough about him to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and as badly failing my notoriously lax standards for lawyers. All lawyers in the UK are admitted to practice before the Inns of Court. In fact, all lawyers admitted in any jurisdiction are admitted to the highest court in that area. This is a run of the mill lawyer who just does what every attorney is expected to do, as pro bono publico -- and no more. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark L'Ecuyer[edit]

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

The only citation for this (or Google result) is a 30-odd page self-published book. I don't think this article has any basis in fact at all. agtx 17:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-published books are not good sources for ancient figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. Not to mention the inherent improbability that a person who lived in the 3rd century BCE had the name "Mark L'Ecuyer". --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:49, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nurmufid Fastabiqul Khoirot[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no full international caps or pro league appearances Spiderone 08:13, 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. Drafts belong at WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 19:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Christoph Irniger[edit]

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

WP:NOTE Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 15:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is a draft, therefore it should be nominated for deletion at WP:MFD not AFD. Everymorning (talk) 16:14, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erphan malek hosseini[edit]

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

Does not satisfy general notability guidelines. The usual criterion for artists is having their works displayed in an exhibition; none is listed. Only Google hits are "vanity" hits of the sort that anyone can achieve. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable artist. Article is actually unsourced as none of the links contain any biographical information. Google search shows he has MySpace, Instagram pages, no real sources found. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 17:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTRESUME. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magroor (1950 film)[edit]

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

Google search fails to find reliable sources for 1950 film. It finds the 1979 film, but that is not the same, and it finds the 1950 film in IMDB, but that is not a third-party reliable source. As a result, does not pass film notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found (by searching google/books 'Magroor, 1950 film') this which has the film title, director and year matching the article. Nothing from a reliable source that appears to satisfy WP:NF. Happy to reconsider if better sources are found. Gab4gab (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

just added another reliable link which contains film info and orignal poster of Magroor 1950 film. regards --Rockyleo94 (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the update. The new source, cinestaan.com, and HindiGeetMala.net both appear to be indiscriminate collections of film data similar to imdb. Because they will include any film they contribute very little to notability. What they contain about this film is just basic film facts plus video or images. No plot summaries. No critical commentary. The third source, memsaabstory, is a personal blog which is not considered a reliable source. A stated goal of the blog is to cover films that have received little coverage elsewhere. Not a helpful policy for showing notability if it was a reliable source. Gab4gab (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for a helpful reply i just added another link plz do check it. regards

--Rockyleo94 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The new link is to osianama.com which has collected art connected to films in a database. Seems to be another collection of every film that has associated art (posters). Inclusion of a particular film would not an indication of notability. Gab4gab (talk) 19:48, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ondra Zelary[edit]

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

I've declined a speedy for crosswiki spam (citing https://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskuse_s_wikipedistou:Harold&curid=1248032&diff=14474308&oldid=14474139 ) as I feel discussion is needed. I can't see anything of note here. He's been in films - mostly uncredited, but one named role listed by IMDb in the bottom part of the 'rest of the cast' section. A version of the article Andy Zelary was speedied in 2013. Peridon (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC):To confuse things, he appears to be 'Ondra Dorian' at IMDb. Ondra and Andy are variants of Andrew. Peridon (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and thank, @Peridon:, for AfD). It's crosswiki spam, Ol cswiki deleted. The person is insignificant. + bad name (I'm from Czech Republic), good is Ondrej. OJJ (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. There are three external links provided in the references section but they do not prove the person's notability. The first one is the IMDb database, which is unacceptable as a user-generated source. The second one looks like a fashion page and does not contain anything on this person. The last one is an interview in the Czech newspaper Lidové noviny, which is a primary source. There has already been a severe debate on cs.wiki, where the contributor who tries to push this promo onto Wikipedia has tried to intimidate users who objected against his article with various ridiculous threats including legal threats and was blocked for personal attacks. She has tried to push this person onto Czech Wikipedia for several years (since 2012), using several Wikipedia accounts. She even sent a scan of a British newspaper title page with a photo of this person to a cs.wiki admin, but the scan was photoshoped. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He isn't notable in any way. This article was pushed to Czech Wikipedia using several accounts (namely cs:Speciální:Příspěvky/Audrey~cswiki, cs:Speciální:Příspěvky/AudreyGH, cs:Speciální:Příspěvky/AudreyGrant and cs:Speciální:Příspěvky/AudreyG.Independent (as far as I know the newest account)). All of this accounts has at least one deleted edit which was relevant for this problem. If needed I can publish deleted edits somewhere. The only Czech reliable source I found is [10]. Looking at some profiles in Czech internet all of them was created by somebody with similar nick to AudreyG so I think we can't accept them as reliable sources. We asked for reliable sources several times. Our request was never fulfiled. Only one attemt was British newspaper (but surely it was a fake made using Photoshop) as written before. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is all lies. I proved 2 articles in independent newspapers and 1 on internet. I would like to report and complain that people in czech wikipedia was trying to demolish this article. It is unacceptable, They try to limit my freedom of expressing myself. I consider this behavior as outrageous audacity, Which should be investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudreyG.Independent (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 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. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 02:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Gary Young[edit]

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

WP:N - does not meet WP:BIO Truthbene23 (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coverage in at least three secondary sources. (Also a little concerned when the *first* thing a new account does is propose an AFD.)Naraht (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the subject is controversial and the article may readily be interpreted as WP:PROMO, there has been quite extensive debate in recent months with underlying positions by editors on WP:N and WP:V, but the article seems stable now. His company, Young Living, remains active and is controversial itself as a purveyor of botanical products that are arguably steeped in quackery. Whatever one may feel about this man and his company, they are out in the public and attract news and debate. I also have concern that new user Truthbene23 begins WP editing with this proposal and may have other motives for the deletion request. --Zefr (talk) 16:00, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Faye[edit]

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

De-prodded with following rationale: "Karen faye is popular make artist she has worked with lots of notable artist and she was in lots of documentaries". However notability is not inherited or transferred. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked databases and Google and not finding enough RS. Maybe is WP:TOOSOON. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the mentions are minor ones connected with Michael Jackson's death, no sign of actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Horng fong[edit]

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

Unverifiable, probably an 8-year old hoax (if so, would be one of the older entries on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia).

Looking for Horng Fong gives not a single result which is older than the Wikipedia article, and all (few) more recent ones seem to be based on our article.

Looking for it in the sources gives no results: Sanderson, Speake. The external link[11] also yields no results. The article linked can be found at [12] but again, nothing about this cryptid. Fram (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched and found nothing authoritative or that appears to pre-date the Wikipedia article.

A text called "The Esoteric Codex: Cryptozoology" which purports to be "curated articles regarding cryptozoology" appears to contain the same content as the Wikipedia article. The text does not indicate whether the Wikipedia article is the source. However, the date listed for the "codex" (9 Apr 2015) is much later than the Wikipedia article's creation date (2 Nov 2008) so presumably the "Codex" article is based on the Wikipedia article. Either that or both articles are based on a third article and then the Wikipedia article is a copyright violation. This "Codex" lists one external link, http://geology.com/news/2008/pygmy-dinosaur-inhabited-bristols-tropical-islands.shtml, which is a dead link. However the URL suggests that the geology.com article was created the same year as the Wikipedia artice. This suggests a hoax. The "Codex" lists one reference, http://books.google.com/books?id=on2ShbwVzp4C, but that apparently is for the front cover and not the content.

No matches for "horng" were found during a search of either the Sanderson book at https://books.google.com/books?id=W2bPAAAAMAAJ or the Speake book at https://books.google.com/books?id=on2ShbwVzp4C.--Rpclod (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparent hoax. In addition to the other evidence above, note that this article is the creator's only-ever contribution to Wikipedia, which in the case of a suspected hoax is always a very bad sign. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Found this very serious publication, but it mirrors this article. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 17:04, 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 keep. There is clear consensus to keep this article as it's notable and has a wealth of reliable sources, but there remains some concern with the title of the article per Fuzheado's concerns. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 03:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Zurich attack[edit]

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

this article is not notable. there is nothing about it on the german wikipedia despite it happened in the german speaking part of the world. you can also try to test where it ended up with what references and try translating it - arabic, azerbeidschan, armenian. and compare the number of total articles with articles about topics like this one on such wikipedias. a pity if wikipedia would be reduced to report persons hurt by shots. wikipedia is not a "crime database". the perceived motivation, in this case disliking a foreign culture, should not be used to construct notability, and enter the incident into wikipedia, and with it make it notable, a notability it would otherwise not have. the text as well is really crap quality, mixing up guyana with ghana, dübendorf with uster, and so on. also the cited german media are of low quality. to give you another example: a year ago a turkish person killed 5 persons. it was reported in newspapers, sources with right tendecy critised that the case was "made smaller" by the newspapers. if you search for "blutbad würenlingen" you find many references, from notable newspapers as well. these notable newspapers would report with one or more articles about every single crime where persons die, at least in switzerland. the main difference is that donald trump woke up in the morning and decided "ah this one might be about foreigners, lets tweet about it". wikipedia does not yet have a criteria "made notable by donald trump". we have our criteria, not the ones of donald trump. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously I'm partial, since I wrote much of the current article up to this point. The murder and shooting in Zurich obviously isn't the biggest news story of the day, but it did get picked up widely and I think there is value in recording what happened for present and future interested readers. Obviously, the NYTimes, Guardian, USA Today, CNN, and others in the international press thought so as well. Would it have been as big a story without the coincident timing and terrorism fears? Perhaps not. Though with only 41 murders per year in Switzerland (2014 stat [13]), and even fewer mass shootings, this event was always going to attract a lot of local attention. We can't cover every crime, but Wikipedia is not paper and we can cover a lot of crimes, provided reasonable sources are available (as they are in this case). Dragons flight (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Is notable. Good References. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 13:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On its own this would be a relatively low-key shooting, as these things go, and probably on the border of WP:NOTNEWS. But the coincidence with the other attacks of the same day, and their linking by such figures as Donald Trump, have led to the shooting receiving international media attention. This probably merits retaining an article, if only to allow readers to assess this case in context with the other two attacks. Sandstein 15:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There is a dependable way in which Wikipedia decides whether the larger socio-political context renders otherwise routine events notable, and that is whether they receive coverage in reliable sources, which this seems to have. The German Wikipedia is also less than half the size of the English, and so lacks many many articles that we have here, with no bearing on whether we should delete a few million English articles to better achieve parity. TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: It is an unquestionably notable topic. The nominator does not cite any actual Wikipedia policies or guidelines that would give a precedent to delete the page. Ceosad (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant topic. Wikipedia is not short of paper. JonSonberg (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and close. This one is notable through extensive sources and media attention. plus impact.BabbaQ (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dragons flight and Sandstein --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is notable enough Beejsterb (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename - With some investigation, this is just a person with mental health issues and not much else. If indeed you want to keep it because of the one day's numerous events, I'd suggest this does not amount to a "Zurich attack" and instead call it the "2016 Zurich Islamic center shooting" or something more in line with the scale of this event's significance, which is not much. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the name is somewhat problematic. However, I'm not sure what to change it to? Focusing on just the shooting in the title, ignores the murder. Also, none of the sources have identified the suspect as having any documented history of mental health issues. The police have naturally said that they are looking into the mental health of the suspect, but they haven't actually confirmed any current or historical mental health issues. Dragons flight (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

now i find the contents now less sensationalist, and the quality greatly improved. i do still not like the title though, tbh. "3 wounded in zürich islamic center" would be something which comes much closer to the facts what made it go through the media. i agree that 20'000 murders occurring in the world per year is not a good argument that this one should not be in wikipedia. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS. More or less run of the mill crazy-person-run-amok shooting incident. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Sandstein's comment might have seemed justifiable at the time of the attack, but as it's clearly fallen out of public discourse since then, there's at least a degree of recentism involved in the judgement of this single attack as notable. Mélencron (talk) 00:29, 29 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 (see page history) (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 14:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nari Gursahani Law College[edit]

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

Non notable educational institution. Fails WP:GNG... Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as it apparently says it awards law degrees (Bachelor of Laws), that's enough for us. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per SwisterTwister. Higher educational institutions are assumed to be notable. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:22, 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) 09:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nagesh Darak[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet any notability guidelines and seems to be an autobiography. The page creator removed the CSD template put by another editor, which was restored, but an IP address removed the CSD again, so here we are at AfD. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 09:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would suggest a XfD here. It reads like an advert, which should be treated accordingly per this policy. Also, there is no attempt to establish notability, and there are no secondary, reliable sources. The only sources I have found on google, are mentions of him - like [goo.gl/K1l4jy | this]]. There are no reliable sources that are about him, as is required. It therefore fails WP:BASIC, and should be deleted.TheMagikCow (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I decided not to XfD since the creator deleted the CSD once, and I suspect that IP that deleted the template a second time's also from him. Oh well. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 13:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ~~an unsourced biography of a living person~~ non-notable. Sources are sparse. --Drm310 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Densmore[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails notability requirements for biographical articles, having no sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources. He was outed, and killed himself 3 months later, with no coverage before or after. Additionally fails notability for WP:CRIME due to never been convicted and the actual law violated not even established. Wikipedia is not a pillory for shaming of individuals. There have been several articles in the past just like this one and all have been deleted. Legitimus (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was in a report on ABC7 in November 2012, and english national newspaper The Daily Mail wrote an article covering his death in mid-2013 (Which was under suspicious circumstances as stated in the article), 3 months after he died, so saying there was no coverage before or after his death is untrue. There was also lot of local and national sources inbetween these dates. Passes WP:GNG because he has had coverage in multiple reliable sources for multiple events for 2 years AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GNG disagrees with BIO. Wheras BIO requires secondary sources, GNG only requires "sources" so a pile of primary sources count. Business Insider, Redwood Times, Washingtonian, ABC7, Times-Standard, and Daily Mail have all covered the subject. I don't think Wikipedia should be so inclusive as I've argued in the past. That said, I don't think it makes much sense to delete this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain what you mean. Are you saying this article might have met GNG, but it's a biography so GNG is not enough, and it has to meet BIO criteria?Legitimus (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldnt [14] be a secondary source? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For this discussion, primary sources are the contemporaneous journalistic sources. Secondary sources would be academic journals or independent books written years after the fact that really examine details; none of those exist for this subject yet. The subject therefore meets GNG but not BIO. So far as I know, any given article would only have to meet one or the other. If there was a consensus that biographies had to meet BIO then huge subjects including Kim Kardashian wouldn't be notable anymore. (Except for maybe NACTOR there's not a criterion beyond GNG she could pass.) I totally support that interpretation but that's not what I've seen the consensus to be. I don't intend to take a position on this nomination for that reason. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with your sentiment on that and the fact that complying with the rule would make Kardashian no longer notable sounds completely reasonable to me, and is rather telling about modern culture. In my opinion some people are best ignored and forgotten about, which I confess informs my opinion on this article we are discussing (as well as the ones like it before that were deleted).Legitimus (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The references are relatively few and discuss one unfortunate event. There is nothing notable.--Rpclod (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia is not news, and the level of deception here is just that of news articles, nothing of major lasting significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:Memorial and trivia. Kierzek (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; no long-term societal impact of these events either. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to close this as delete but I felt compelled to also highlight WP:ONEEVENT. I see no WP:LASTING consequences to this event that would preserve this individual's notability in a wider context. Mkdw ^talk 17:42, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Safia Haleem[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable academic. A search failed to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. However, as the subject of the article is from Pakistan, it is possible that sources might exist in Arabic and Urdu; if such sources are found, please ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total lack of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as a clear delete for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/weak keep. (1) Formerly Head of the BBC Pashto Service - citation. Non-English sources seem more likely to be found in Pashto than in Arabic or Urdu. (2) Claims of academic importance seem to rest on this paper, written in collaboration with the two people who did the work. I don't think it adds anything to notability, which if there is any derives from her broadcasting career. Narky Blert (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a suggestion (not WP:RS) that she was also involved in the BBC Dari language service, so that and Farsi are other possible languages where evidence might be found. Narky Blert (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no authoritative references are provided. Nothing suggests particular notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF as she hasn't had multiple published papers that have been cited a lot, so she's hardly got any outstanding contributions in her field Seasider91 (talk) 22:28, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 11:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Floatigation[edit]

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

Non notable neologism. Google searches only find 26 hits - almost all by a single author. Facebook, linkedin, blogs, mailing lists but no significant coverage in reliable sources. No hits on google scholar. noq (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's Mariculture as a possible merge target but that appears to only cover salt water, apparently. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it part of Hydroponics or Hydroculture perhaps? PamD 08:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to be a term only used by one person who I suspect is involved in the project referred to in the Decca Chronicle article - it does not appear anywhere else without the Dr. N. Sai Bhaskar Reddy name being mentioned. Only 26 google hits make it unlikely to be used by anyone else. noq (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insignificant coverage in independent sources. utcursch | talk 03:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think its just an application of Hydroculture where plants would be grown using water only and would have some floating devices along with them to enable floating in larger water bodies. Pinging editors who might help here @Shyamal and AshLin: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neither WP:GNG nor WP:DICTDEF. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 03:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chaubandi Cholo[edit]

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

Completely non-notable topic. Obviously made up by the creator, no claim of significance. Fails WP:GNG, considered per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The British Museum reference in the article says "Description: A woman's blouse, a 'chaubandicholo'". Even conjecturing that some translation misunderstanding had been introduced in that acquisition, Google Books is returning quite a number of snippet views discussing this garment. (See also this book page discussing cultural significance.) These indicate some potential for expansion and seem inconsistent with the "Obviously made up by the creator" suggestion in the nomination. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good nomination, but I think enough authoritative sources exist to make this notable. They are difficult to find however because apparently a popular musical group uses the same name. I edited the article and added some sources.--Rpclod (talk) 22:37, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SciTECO[edit]

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

Zero evidence of coverage in reliable sources. —swpb^T 13:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well-written article, but there a zero references, let alone any authoritative references. Nothing suggests that this subject is actually notable.--Rpclod (talk) 23:51, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakalurakkam[edit]

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

Non notable film with unheard of actors. Fails WP:GNG. Even the source is broken PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM; no evidence that the film has had any impact Spiderone 14:05, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ardhanareeswaran[edit]

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

Non notable film. Article was created before principal photography commenced. Therefore fails WP:FILM. A Malayalam movie with a similar (not same) title and an entirely different cast and crew was made later. Most of the references are bogus as well. Nothing has been heard of this movie since 2011. PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM; no evidence that the film will ever be released or be notable Spiderone 14:06, 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. Sandstein 06:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Williamhill, Glasgow[edit]

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

Unsourced article on a very obscure locality for which I can't find any reliable sources. Can't even identify where it is – the location details given ("west of Springburn, south of Balornock and to the north-west of Barmulloch") contradict each other, and bear no resemblance to the coordinates either. Jellyman (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail WP:Verifiability. Peter James (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:32, 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. MER-C 08:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaiko[edit]

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

No reliable independent sources are cited, and I did not find any to add. Most mentions are blogs and other sites run by Esperanto fans, but none of them seem to have the features necessary to make them WP:RS, and none establish that the subject meets WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like it's just a promotional article for an obscure company. Layla, the remover (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional? not notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:56, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saharan clan[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that this is notable. Boleyn (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG Spiderone 14:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references given, let alone any authoritative references, to demonstrate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 23:55, 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 06:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siliconithub[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:Notability, no sources (and no sources to support notability that I can find.) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 13:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 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. This article has no sources whatsoever, and barely any content, it makes eminent sense to restore it to a redirect as it was previously unless and until a proper article with proper sourcing can be developed. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA[edit]

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

It's simply the Census Bureau's name for the Seattle metro area. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928^Talk 21:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of primary statistical areas of the United States. Praemonitus (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems emininently sensible for Wikipedia to define what this is. Redirecting to List of primary statistical areas of the United States doesn't make sense to me, because that is a list of all bluelinks linking out to articles about the statistical areas. Clicking on one of them randomly, i find that the Hartford-West Hartford one redirects to a section in a Greater Hartford article that gives detailed information about the statistical area. I would not object if someone wanted to create or develop a similar section in the Seattle metro area article, and redirect this to there, but they can do that without having an AFD. Or someone could develop this more. A 4.2 million population area is important. --do ncr am 23:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 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. MER-C 08:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RAPid Tooling Components[edit]

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

Article is promotional in nature and should be deleted. Rogermx (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every thing you said Layla, the remover (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a product brochure, not a Wikipedia article.--Rpclod (talk) 23:56, 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. MER-C 08:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Butt Sweets & Bakers[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability under WP:COMPANY. References are not to secondary sources and content only serves as advertising. Some content is cut/pasted from another site. Company logo uploaded to Wikimedia by article creator is possibly also a breach of copyright. Parkywiki (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable, objective sources. Nothing indicates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Time to bring back Vanispamcruftisement to describe, well, whatever this mess is. Non-fixable and non-notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yasemin Ergene[edit]

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

I still confirm my PROD here as any "existing news coverage" is not actually staying how and why it would amount to actual notability and whrther or not it's simply entertainment gossip news. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – GNews is providing a great deal of coverage about this subject: [15], [16], [17]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 06:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one film and several tv series. No references. Perhaps too soon, but notability not shown.--Rpclod (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple apparent Turkish-language sources but I can't evaluate WP:RS or independence of said sources. WikiProject Turkey seems basically dead, is there any other measure to reasonably attract Turkish-language experts to this discussion? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:02, 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 speedy delete. clear consensus that it meets the standard for A7 DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nichola$ KM[edit]

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

Non-notable/WP:TOOSOON singer with no coverage in any WP:RS. JamesG5 (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The comparison with Ke$ha aside, AllMusic.com and iheart.com are not suitable evidence of notability. Neither is a reference to a high school's web page, nor is the assertion that he is a "future writer". Once he has become notable, we can have an article on him. Nothing here demonstrates that, and as a Google search conveniently turns up only one result— this very Wikipedia article— I only find myself wondering why this didn't get yanked as a CSD under A7. KDS4444 (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable about this person. It appears that the A7 was accidentally pulled due to an edit conflict. Both notability and tone issues, Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like Robert McClenon said, there's nothing seemingly notable about this person (yet). It's written like an advert and there's a clear conflict of interest. ɯɐɔ (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons ably given above. -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD(A7) - Once again, repeated deletion of a CSD template by a page creator has led us here. No reliable sources, all self-published or don't even mention the subject of the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 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. If more information becomes available that better shows notability , then an article can be started in draft space. DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Horace George Victor Roberts[edit]

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

Aside from being unsourced, the subject does not satisfy military notability guidelines because the Military Cross is not the United Kingdom's highest award. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sources can be provided, usually with no problem. But why would the fact that his award not being the highest award be relevant for deletion? The Purple Heart is not the highest award in the US but if a soldier received it because he threw himself on a grenade, losing his life to protect the lives of fellow soldiers or civilians any less heroic? Just something to think about. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Postcard Cathy - That sounds like an issue for WP:WikiProject Military History. There are probably tens of thousands of acts of heroism in the armed forces of the world in a given year. We have to have a standard of who is and who is not notable. If the soldier in question received the Medal of Honor for the act mentioned above, he is notable and gets his article. We can change the guidelines, but, for now, they are the guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get that. But for now, I would like put this discussion on hold to see if anyone can find out why the original editor thought he was wiki worthy, incorporate it in the article and source it for good measure. Postcard Cathy (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete in no way comes close to meeting our inclusion guidelines for military personnel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider this before passing judgement Hello, I'm the original author and very new to wikipedia (please don't hate!) H.G.V. Roberts in my opinion is wiki-worthy and I have a mountain of information I'm starting to publish - remember the information we are sourcing is dating back over 100 years. Not withstanding his Military Cross (which is the 3rd highest honor and on its own shouldn't preclude him from being considered notable according to wikipedia policy) he also received numerous other awards I'm currently researching for citations for in the London Gazette. Colonel Roberts served across both WW1 and WW2 and was the Commandant of the Small Arms and Mechanisation School, Ahmednagar, India during WW2. Colonel Roberts was killed during WW2 but the cause at this stage is still a mystery, we have a date but not a cause - we are still actively researching the events around his death. We have had confirmation from London that his WW1 service records were part of the famous 2-million records burnt in London during WW2 as a result of the bombing campaigns of Germany, however I have managed to track down some that survived and have a researcher in London at the National Archives assisting us as well. His WW2 records are classified as "secret" and we have applied to the Ministry of Defence in the UK to have them released, however this is a very lengthy process to go through and can take up to 18-months. Aside from his military career other points of interest worth noting is he studied Theology at Kings in London where he gained the Jelf Prize for Dogmatic Theology, Wordsworth Prize, and Barry Divinity Prize. Colonel Roberts originally wished to pursue a career in theology and aside from his studies he was a part-time member of the Territorial Army with the Middlesex Regiment. During his early years his father died of unknown causes. Following his Father's death and at the outbreak of WW1 he was mobilised from the Territorial Army for service in the Egyptian theatre of war, then served on the Western Front where he won his Military Cross as a Captain, followed by additional M.I.Ds awarded twice for action on the Western Front while attached to the Machine Gun Corps. Towards the end of the Great War he was Officer Commanding 40th and 30th Machine Gun Corps. The Machine Gun Corps was the foundation for the new mechanised fleet of moving heavy guns (tanks), and during his service with the the Machine Gun Corps Colonel Roberts helped pioneer the use of the early tanks and was a founding member of the Royal Tank Corps. During WW2 he served in various senior headquarter and officer-staff appointments for the Royal Tank Corps including Commander and his final posting at the time of his death was Commandant of the Small Arms and Mechanisation School, Ahmednagar, India. Can feedback please be provided here as to whether this person would meet wikipedia guidelines, I'd hate to go to all the effort of publishing a page, adding images, citations, awards etc. for it to just be deleted. I want to contribute to the community based on this research we are conducting on this Officer and the role he played across 2 World Wars but won't publish it on wikipedia if it's not welcomed. Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwallace50546 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (A7) The General Notability Guidelines require Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources. Contrary to what people often say, it is not that difficult to find this sort of coverage - I've been able to locate reliable sources from the 1850s, after all - and the information would definitely be available from the WW1 & WW2 periods. I'm a member of the Military History WikiProject and I need to point out that there are strict notability criteria for Armed Forces Personnel - in this specific case, Horace Roberts would have needed to be at least Brigadier rank, or to have earned the Victoria Cross, to meet these guidelines but that can be overruled if it can be shown that the General Notability Guidelines are met. What I suggest is that you (straight away) copy this article to your Sandbox and continue to work on it there, and then submit it for review when you're finished. In its current form it's definitely eligible for Speedy Deletion and that can happen at any time without warning. The article doesn't mention a lot of key facts and it definitely will need citations and references (they don't have to be Online sources, they can be published books for example). As a further suggestion, once you've saved the article to your sandbox you might want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history - you'd be able to post a request there for assistance with your article and I've always found the editors there to be very well-informed and helpful. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete Thank you for explaining things. Now I understand the process better, I'll leave any page regarding H.G.V Roberts off wikipedia. There are many reliable sources that cite facts supporting what I have explained above and more (e.g. London Gazette, National Archives etc.), however it seems to me as though this could become an extremely bureaucratic and painful process to have anything published or agreed upon. I'll leave that to others as it's certainly not my domain of expertise.

Comment - don't be so hasty! Yes, it might seem bureaucratic & painful at times but with a bit of work, you should be able to produce a well-rounded article for submission. Don't give up at the first hurdle - I've had articles deleted before & I'm still here! Exemplo347 (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I second @Exemplo347's comments here. I notice that this is your first Wikipedia article and existing frequent editors, at least in principle, try to be supportive and welcoming. Major/Brevet Colonel Roberts almost certainly doesn't meet the criteria of distinction required for an article of his own unless your research at the MoD yields fruit that ultimately is published. (I note that the London Gazette states that Roberts went on half-pay while remaining employed in 1937, implicitly within the MoD, supporting your contention). While an M.C. is an award of great distinction, I note that fully half the majors in the R.T.C. in 1930 had been awarded an M.C. (though I fervently hope that neither of my sons is ever in a position to earn the equivalent of an M.C.). Furthermore, I could find no other coverage of the man in non-military sources that give any indiction of distinction. Anyway, please don't feel discouraged. Find another article idea, take a look at the WP:GNG guidelines, research your cited sources (which don't need to be online!) and start typing. For instance, you could add to the existing articles on the Royal Tank Corps of the inter-war years. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there needs to be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources for an article to meet the general notability guideline and have an article. At present this article has just one citation to a primary source. As a colonel awarded the Military Cross, he also falls short of WP:SOLDIER, as he was not a general officer, did not command a division or formation of similar size, and was not awarded his country's highest award (VC/GC) or receive multiple awards of the next highest (DSO?). By all means, keep looking for reliable secondary sources, but on face value, he doesn't meet the GNG. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Exemplo347 that if there is a basis for his notability, the article should be worked up in a sandbox before bringing it in to mainspace. As it is now, it doesn't seem to be even a close call. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:49, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philo (Internet television)[edit]

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

Non notable company by WP:SPA creating WP:PROMO articles. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know how we can any longer call the article creator an WP:SPA when he's clearly branched out to write about notable (in my opinion) American tech startups and Internet entrepreneurs with no relation to one another, other than perhaps that they have been incubated in the Boston area. Why would we want to discourage this with WP:BITEy behaviour? Plus, this isn't an example of WP:PROMO, it's a neutrally well-written article. And while Philo is hardly a household name, we do have enough coverage to meet the criterion of multiple reliable sources, in my opinion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOT (policy) applies here since it's a clear advertisement part of an advertising campaign, enough said. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article meets WT:NOT, WT:ORG, and WT:RS. @SwisterTwister: are you also suddenly going after all my pages? How is this an advertising campaign? Please, I encourage you to show good evidence. You have provided no argument whatsoever. How is this article "clearly" part of an advertising campaign? Andresramon (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon[reply]
Comment - Simply for the sake of this AfD, I will state that an article caring to specify its clients in the first sentences and with its company activities is clear advertising and it gets worse when the PR award is listed, followed by the PR sources. WP:NOT is therefore violated because all of this is only suitable for the company website. SwisterTwister talk 23:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well of course you are gonna have PR as listed sources --- why are there so many NYT articles cited in wiki? Why is it that a link to NYT is placed at the top of an AfD? These are reliable sources that are used over and over again to show notability and encyclopedic content. Now tell me, @SwisterTwister: how is Foursquare's first sentence any different? I'll copy and paste it: Foursquare is a local search-and-discovery service mobile app which provides search results for its users. By taking into account the places where a user goes, the things they have told the app that they like, and the other users whose advice they trust, Foursquare provides recommendations of the places to go to near a user's current location. The first fragment describes what it is, a search-and-discovery service mobile all. It then states what it does for the user, to use your phrasing, the "clients", with the phrase by taking into account the places where a user goes" ..etc etc. Now, just like Foursquare's first sentence summarizes what it is, so does the Philo's first statement. I have now, changed the first sentence to seem even less than Foursquare's. In fact, it just barely contains the necessary information for a reader to skim. Andresramon (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon[reply]
  - @Shawn in Montreal and SwisterTwister: I'm starting to think this individual is just WP:NOTGETTINGIT... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per articles in NY Times and WSJ, plus FastCompany recognition. Clean up. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotionalism is all by itself a reason for deletion. A $20 million internet company is very unlikely to be notable, and in fact, there are no substantial sources. As for Foursquare, see WP:Einstein. Someone writing an article on a very minor company who thinks it compares it with a leader in the field shows a lack of proportion that typically goes with promotional editing. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is definitely promotion/advertising. The company is not notable. -- Dane ^talk 19:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per major improvement by User:Timothyjosephwood.[18] Shows it got non-trivial coverage in Forbes and the New York Times - what more can we ask for? --GRuban (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now at 14 references total including NYT, WSJ, and Forbes, compared to seven when nominated. Toned down overall. Now fairly run-of-the-mill for a mid sized tech company. When founded, who invested, what they do, etc... TimothyJosephWood 16:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the company has not achieved anything remarkable so far apart from raising money and planning to "complete the integration of streaming service, HBO Go by January 2017". Wikipedia is not a directory of unremarkable tech startups even if they get WSJ to write about them. See WP:NOTNEWS. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. Demonstrated notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 04:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – A significant part of the article focuses upon funding, which some view as promotional, so this is a bit of a weaker keep. More information about the company itself, and its previous incarnation as Tivli, as reported in reliable sources, would improve the article. The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Some source examples include, but are not limited to: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous valid references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And improve. Multiple good references. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 13:40, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DashieXP[edit]

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

I am not that familiar with YouTube personalities these days but he does appear to be a popular YouTube personality, with over 3 million subscribers on his main account. However, despite an extensive search using both his real name and his online handle, I was unable to find enough significant reliable coverage specifically about him. Pinging Reddogsix who had earlier tagged the page for speedy deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks support to establish WP:N. Unfortunately, popularity does not equal notability. reddogsix (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of any sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 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. Per the evidence of notability provided. Mergers and the like can be discussed elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum (magazine)[edit]

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

Spectrum magazine is hardly a notable resource almost all of the sources link to the website also spectrum magazine does not get much coverage Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree this article also does not meet notability requirements, what is the next step?...Simbagraphix (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well first off i am thankful you are here to discuss this since there is not much discussion ~~i will probably add the speedy delete template--Jonnymoon96~~ (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonnymoon96: You cannot tag a page for speedy deletion unless it unquestionably meets one of the speedy deletion criteria. Lack of discussion at WP:AFD does not even come close. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisted in the hope of discussion DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The significance of this publication in Adventist circles seems to be substantiated by the source in the second footnote. [24] As such it passes Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals. Of course it would be a stronger demonstration of notability if there were more than one independent source cited for the proposition. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum As a split from another article, a notability concern for this topic does not need admin tools; and as per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, content discussions at AfD should be moved to a proper forum. Note that the fourth snippet in WP:BEFORE D1 Google news is from the Washington Post in 2015 and states, "...the independent, progressive-leaning Adventist magazine Spectrum." Unscintillating (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A few minutes WP:GOOGLETESTing shows that there are quite a number of high to mid quality sources that collectively meet WP:GNG (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/seventh-day-adventists-vote-against-female-ordination/2015/07/08/42920f7e-25c8-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html http://www.union-bulletin.com/news/education/walla_walla_university/adventists-unity-document-sparks-church-rift/article_bb96de18-9331-11e6-af7e-173a85b5e91a.html; https://thecompassmagazine.com/news/womens-ordination-a-reckoning-at-the-annual-council-2016-part-1; https://www.scribd.com/document/214056313/Understanding-the-Ford-Crisis-in-the-Pages-of-Spectrum). Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:37, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Stefani[edit]

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

This could be a case of WP:TOOSOON, as there are some passing mention in few reliable sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is just another businessman, nothing suggests notability.--Rpclod (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 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 hasn't given us anything else and improvements are suggested so we may as well allow time for these (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile (organism)[edit]

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

This is just a dictionary definition, falling foul of WP:NOTDICT. There are encyclopedic topics already for embryo and larva; apart from those, there's nothing to say beyond what Wiktionary can do better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the current article contents disprove the claim of WP:DICDEF, but it may still be deletable on other grounds (notability: has this been discussed in science sources) or mergeable. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not a dictionary definition and shouldn't be deleted on those grounds. There may be an argument that this article's content overlaps with other articles and could be or should be merged elsewhere, but I'd like to see a specific proposal first. Peacock (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could do with substantial expansion, but the topic of juvenile organisms as distinct from embryos and larvae is worth an article. Admittedly this might predominantly consist of summaries with pointers to more in-depth articles. Interesting avenues would be, e.g., neoteny; post-fledging/pre-moult stage (particularly crucial in seabirds); usage and distinction of immature vs juvenile; etc. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:29, 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 rename. This discussion really should have been closed with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidency of Fidel Castro. There was consensus to merge that article with this one, so that's what's going to happen. I see appetite for a merger here as well, which if anything strengthens the consensus that was found in the other discussion. It has been pointed out that the merged article would need a new name, so I'm going with Cuba under Fidel Castro, as it seems that name hasn't been objected to. If someone feels it necessary, further discussion on a new name should take place as a(n) WP:RM, and further discussion regarding the merger should take place on the talk page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Premiership of Fidel Castro[edit]

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

The article essentially repeats verbatim a section in Fidel Castro with no new information. In the three years of its existence, it has not expanded beyond that. Scaleshombre (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a proposal on the article's talk page to merge it with Presidency of Fidel Castro that is only two days old. Is there any particular reason it should be deleted rather than merged? Joe Roe (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging the two seems a fairly good idea; deleting them less so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Presidency of Fidel Castro suffers from the same problem. There's no significant information that doesn't already appear in the main Fidel Castro article. It's being considered for deletion, too. Scaleshombre (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The main Fidel Castro article may well have to be trimmed as it makes its way towards FA. The other articles constitute a place for any extraneous information. I think that they should be kept, although a merger might well be in order. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's also a related AfD nomination for Presidency of Fidel Castro at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidency of Fidel Castro -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also Presidency of Fidel Castro. We have a long biography (with 425 references). I so not see the purpose of having separate articles on different parts of his life. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Presidency of Fidel Castro with Premiership of Fidel Castro, per WP:PRESERVE, pending FA development at Fidel Castro for detail that may be better off trimmed from the main article. It may be that the merged article should then be renamed, I don't have a rename proposal in mind however. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - 'Presidency of Fidel Castro' and 'Premiership of Fidel Castro' both need to be turned into one article, called something such as 'Administration of Fidel Castro', 'Governance by Fidel Castro', or 'Regime of Fidel Castro'. This is the most logical thing to do. We really ought to do it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If things weren't in such flux right now, I likely would be bold and create 'Administration of Fidel Castro' myself as a broad overview article. I might end up doing that anyways. We'll see. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  @CoffeeWithMarkets: I'd recommend Cuba under Fidel Castro as the title.--Nevé –selbert 12:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Motion to close - the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidency of Fidel Castro has closed with a "merge" result, seemingly making this discussion redundant, and discussion about the appropriate title for the merged article can proceed on the article's talk page. No prejudice against renominating the merged article, once that's done. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 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. MER-C 08:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chillx[edit]

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

Non notable mobile app. Recently launched and sourced to what reads like the same press release. Google searches not finding anything that would establish notability. noq (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The "references" appear to be duplicates of several press releases. Nothing suggests any ongoing traction.--Rpclod (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more than just press releases are required to establish notability Spiderone 14:08, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abram Pinkenson[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. While the story is riveting I simply cannot locate any sources mentioning the subject of the article. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding sources shortly - in the mean time please leave. Trotboy (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC) in the mean time look at the Spanish Wikipedia entry here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Pinkenzon[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No harm in moving the article to a draft. Unfortunately, the Spanish article isn't of much use, since it too includes no sources. The subject may be notable, but after poking around online, if they are, it's probably in non-English sources. TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think you may have only been searching using the Latin alphabet. When you search for Абрам Владимирович Пинкензон, a great many sources present themselves, including a medium length and medium-well-sourced :ru: Wikipedia article. I've added the interlanguage links to the article - five wikipedia articles in other languages exist. I will try to check the Russian sources and copy them over to this article in the near future. Fiachra10003 (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One also needs to search under the diminutive name "Муся Пинкензон" as this was the name by which he was referred to in most of the Soviet publications as well as many of the modern Russian sources. The Soviets often used diminutives for younger heroes and full names for enemies (e.g. "Brave little Donnie Trump" versus "the class traitor and blasphemer Donald Frederickovich Trump"). Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suspected it was a language issue. Good job to Fiachra10003 for following up on that. I suppose though that I'll note I'm !voting with an admitted bias that, if we are discussing a moderately well sourced article on a topic approaching a century old, the subject is likely notable, because otherwise we wouldn't know it existed in the first place. TimothyJosephWood 13:47, 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kottakkal Nandakumaran Nair[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:AnastesMp (WP:SPA) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). All I see are mentions in passing and an interview ([25]), which is not a great source (for reasons elaborated at WP:INTERVIEW). As written, fails WP:CREATIVE, and I cannot find anything to prop it up. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial and unconvincing sources with trivial and unconvincing I information, none of which amount to actual substance, hence deletion is the solution. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 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. MER-C 08:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jemo (band)[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The article claims that "the album reached heavy rotation on American and Canadian College Radio stations in 2001, and received critical acclaim from radio and print in North America as well as Europe and Australia", but fails to provide any reliably sourced evidence that any of that is true — and on a ProQuest search, the only hit I get for their name at all is a concert listing for them playing Toronto's Free Times Café in 2001...which is right when the album was reportedly rising on college radio, except I live in Toronto and it's not a "rising stars of college radio" sort of venue. (If you're looking for klezmer, though, then there's your nirvana.) And for sourcing present in the article, what we have to show is blogs right across the board — of which the only halfway reliable one is Torontoist, wherein we learn that they got double-booked at a bar in Fredericton with an AC/DC cover band in 2006: again, not a thing that happens to "stars of college radio", because even Fredericton has a "notable indie bands" bar that isn't the same place as the "AC/DC cover bands" bar. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which any band is entitled to an article just because they exist(ed) — reliable source coverage, properly supporting a claim of notability that passes WP:NMUSIC, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing indicates that WP:BAND criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 07:23, 29 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 nationalization. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deprivatization[edit]

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

This was a redirect to Nationalization for about five years. Then an IP created this unreferenced article that is little more than a definition with an edit comment that the redirect was "improper". The lead does say that Deprivatization is also called Renationalization (which is covered in Nationalization). I don't see anything improper about redirecting to a much better article. This article should be deleted/with the original redirect restored. MB 04:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to nationalization. As pointed out, renationalization is talked about at nationalization. The current article offers it as a synonym for deprivatization. I found some usage of the term deprivatization but again, for the same concept as renationalization. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to nationalization. This is a classic case of Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fiachra10003 (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and prevent further re-creation. Bearian (talk) 14:17, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pop & Suki[edit]

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

New fashion shop, launched three weeks ago by model Suki Waterhouse and her friend. It can't inherit their notability (WP:INHERITORG) and it's too new to be notable yet. Only sources are announcements about the launch. Yintan 05:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another fashion store. Wikipedia is not a directory.--Rpclod (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced to significant coverage in Elle, W Magazine, Paper, and even Vogue. Those are all big-name, established, independent, reliable sources for fashion accessories. That's enough to establish notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, or at very least merge (see below). Definitely has significant coverage, but some of the articles are really shallow in content (Elle, NY Times). Others are more about "Pop" or "Suki" or both but not their fashion brand explicitly. And then some, such as the Vogue article, have depth on the company. It isn't worth deleting outright but there is a question of whether the company would be better covered in one of the designer's articles. As for now, I see enough sources to write at least a small article, but a merge might be a consideration if no more coverage is to come. czar 02:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the Vogue source is the best coverage, there isn't enough. Not only is it not in depth--it's basically an advertorial for their handbag. DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and the sources do not cover the topic in depth and rely on PRIMARY sources for facts. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Vogue is the best coverage, it doesn't mean it's the ONLY coverage. Vogue and The Sunday Times go into depth on the company.[26][27]. And W Magazine and Refinery 29 go in depth on their main product, the camera bag.[28][29]. The other sources shouldn't be disregarded, but they just don't have much depth to offer. It could be covered within due weight in a parent article, but the question is then whether it belongs in the separate Poppy or Suki articles, and I wager that it (1) fits best in neither, and (2) has enough coverage to stand on its own as a company article rather than shoehorned into one of the aforementioned founders' articles. Unless the four sources mentioned above now count for nothing, we should be discussing merger/redirection (and not deletion) as a minimum. @DGG and HighKing czar 20:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The item in Vogue, as I mentioned, is basically an advertorial for their bags. The item in the Sunday Times is written in such a tone that nobody could take it seriously as a source for anything. To call it an advertorial would be an unjustified compliment. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Mendiola massacre per below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1987 Mendiola Massacre[edit]

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

Duplicate of Mendiola massacre. Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mendiola massacre because this article is duplicative. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Mendiola massacre. There's no need for additional discussion on this, as it was a wholesale copy-paste of that article. Now can anyone close this discussion because I don't know how to? Thanks! –H T D 02:22, 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. Would be nice if some of the sources were actually indicated, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pratyoush Onta[edit]

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

I still confirm my PROD as it is a fact she's not notable for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:PROD rationale that the nominator confirms here says "GoogleScholar ... found nothing". A click on the spoon-fed Google Scholar search above shows that to be completely untrue. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nomination makes claims that demonstrably fail WP:BEFORE. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears in multiple sources as a notable author and scholar. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:41, 29 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. czar 07:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heidtman Steel[edit]

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

Cannot find independent sources on Google; appears to be a non-notable corporation. CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising and web site copy by SPA that is apparently connected. No WP:RS coverage that is not WP:ROUTINE. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:04, 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 No consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WR Entertainment[edit]

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

Although the company is listed on a stock exchange, I could not seem to find enough coverage specifically about the company; at most, what I found were brief mentions in articles, as well as company profiles and promotional material. Narutolovehinata5 ^t
ccsdnew 04:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-- What is this complaint really about? Please be aware that this page was just created and that it will be completed with further information. Besides the obvious fact that the company is listed on the stock exchange with the ticker [WRE-ME], which is a big indicator of creditbility, there are several news articles on the company throughout the past 7 years since incorporation in 2009, some of which are: Nettavisen Dec 2, 2016, E24 Nov 15,2016, Dagens Næringsliv Jan 11, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C Lunde (talk • contribs) 05:51, December 7, 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - being listed on a Stock exchange isn't considered a good measure of notability as it has been alleged above by another editor. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparent Norwegian-language sources enough to establish notability (assuming Google Translate isn't totally off its rocker). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:07, 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. czar 19:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SQLeo[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Legrand legrand (creator, WP:SPA) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). It also seems likely that the article was moved by the user form Draft:SQLeo to mainspace even through it was not accepted by any reviewer (it was declined by User:Ringbang: nn - Submission is about a topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines (be more specific if possible). I do not see any good sources; nothing on Google Books or Scholar. My verdict: promotional article about non-notable software. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising from a classic advertising campaign so WP:NOT applies in this alone. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Engelson[edit]

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

Most news results are due to his divorce from the girl-friend of Prince Harry. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very few sources available; no in-depth coverage; notability not inherited.104.163.143.107 (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vast majority of coverage in WP:RS is as Meghan Markle spouse/ex-spouse and as IP editor says, WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Remainder is social media and IMDB-type hits. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:35, 29 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) 09:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahir Madatov[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still fails WP:GNG Spiderone 08:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 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) 09:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Vargas[edit]

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

I am not able to find enough sources that makes it pass WP:MUSICBIO. The linked article Carlos & Alejandra has few sources online. But that article also is not that notable. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only musician Carlos Vargas I can find significant WP:RS on is a piano teacher, who does not appear to be this Carlos Vargas. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:43, 29 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 and redirect to MC_Eiht#Discography. Nothing sourced to merge. czar 07:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which Way Iz West[edit]

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

Non-notable, and WP:TOOSOON. TheKaphox T 17:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources are predictions of future release, which runs smack dab into WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The fluctuation in information on scheduled release makes the notability even further doubtful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:10, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jahongir Jiyamuradov[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is a player in the highest national professional league for his country. However, this league is not confirmed at fully professional (see WP:FPL) this does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT, and he has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still fails GNG Spiderone 08:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for footballers.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) 09:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tahiem[edit]

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

Cannot find anything in sources that qualify subject as meeting Music notability requirements. Rogermx (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Limited independent sources, assuming there won't be more. South Nashua (talk) 00:30, 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. czar 04:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dheeraj Deshmukh[edit]

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

Copying from the talk page: "Reasons for Deletion Request: Low importance, unreferenced and controvertial material present

Very small article should be moved to draft space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.135.238.200 (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC) ". I have myself no opinion on the notability, merely creating the nomination page which the IP is not able to create. Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel potential COI exists: Political candidates and their staff should not edit articles about themselves, their supporters, or their opponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HamitDeshmukh (talk • contribs) 14:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was a holder of low level offices in the youth branch of a political party, this is no where near passing the notability requirements for a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources for WP:GNG and nothing near WP:POLITICIAN. Non-notable youth activist, essentially. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:07, 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 No consensus.. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Corgan[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actor. Quis separabit? 21:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG via coverage for founding a theater company[30], theater reviews[31] [32] [33], and theater company announcements[34]. Sources also show he passes WP:NACTOR #1 "significant roles in multiple notable...stage performances..." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:29, 29 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 after being withdrawn by nominator. Procedural close. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Praça TV[edit]

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

I guess, but I am not sure, that this article is not about a program or a TV station but about a time-frame allocated for local TV. Nearly incomprehensible, partly untranslated. Seems to fail WP:GNG due to namesakes. The Banner talk 22:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Local equivalent to BBC's time set aside for regional news. Could use some help but a basic clean-up should clarify things. Nate • (chatter) 23:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note When starting a AfD with guessing, you should have started a discussion (on the talk page) first. Please read WP:BEFORE. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 20:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, take care of your own sloppy articles first instead of following me around, Sander. The Banner talk 10:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are notorious because they are local news from TV Globo, then there is no reason to put to delete. Biantez ^msg 22:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Banner, please don't attack others. They have a point; you should have put up an "expand Portuguese" template on here to flag it as needing help from Brazilian editors familiar with that country's television industry, or tried to make sense of what was said rather than a direct AfD; I've done the work but whatever issues you have with other editors, keep them out of deletion discussions and focus on the articles. Nate • (chatter) 20:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned long ago that expecting real action of other editors is usually a distant dream. So an in comprehensive article will be send to AfD instead of gambling that others take their responsibility. In most cases, nothing will happen at all. This article is pleasant exception on that. Nomination withdrawn as article is now readable and understandable. The Banner talk 00:25, 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. czar 19:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tung-Chai Ling[edit]

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

An obvious autobiography laden with WP:PEACOCK terms. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - autobiographical or not, does not meet WP:GNG, and his low citation count (high of 90) doesn't meet WP:SCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious attempt to host a resume by article subject (or some-one closely connected). No refuge in WP:GNG or WP:NBIO to save it. this is the editor's third attempt[35] to create such a page, so salting may be necessary. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 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 and redirect to Magmatic water. Sandstein 09:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primordial water[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primary water and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primary Water Institute apparently weren't enough. Yet another recreation of this WP:FRINGE topic in mainspace by a self-confessed SPA. Kolbasz (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to magmatic water just like was done with Primary water. As far as I can tell this is just the same article made again. I'd advise the author to consider giving it a rest. If a topic isn't notable per our inclusion guidelines, persistence will not fix that. This is not a fruitful use of your time (or ours). Not having your favorite topic on Wikipedia is not a big deal. If the topic truly is important, people will continue to write about it (off-wiki) and eventually there will be enough for an encyclopedia article. No rush. Ajpolino (talk) 21:17, 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 List of Decepticons#MicroMasters. czar 04:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tailwind (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character in the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world significance. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons. A very minor Transformers character, who only had a handful of appearances, and has no reliable sources discussing him in any length. It seems like the vast majority of his appearances was as a Decepticon, making it the more appropriate list to redirect to. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons#MicroMasters. No independent notability Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:57, 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 redirect to List_of_Autobots#Robots_in_Disguise. czar 19:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Jet[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world significance. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. Just another very minor Transformers character with no notability or reliable sources. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots as suggested. No independent notability as character. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 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. Hut 8.5 11:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skyfall (Transformers)[edit]

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

Transformers character with no real-world significance. Past efforts to turn this article into a redirect have been resisted. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Without suitable sources to establish notability, this is not necessary. TTN (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots. Minor fictional character with no reliable sources discussing the him in any length. While it seems like one of his incarnations was a Decepticon, the majority of his appearances was as an Autobot, making it the more appropriate redirect. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and not listed on List of Autobots. Without a valid redirect target, this should go. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:19, 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 redirect to List of Transformers: The Headmasters characters#Autobots. Not mentioned in main Autobots list. czar 19:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grotusque[edit]

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

Minor character in the Transformers universe with no real-world significance. Past efforts to turn this into a redirect were resisted without comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. Yet another very minor Transformers character with no notability or reliable sources. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots as suggested. No independent notability as character. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:44, 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 no consensus. The article has been moved to Corvo Attano and very substantially expanded during this AfD, making parts or most of the discussion moot. A new AfD would be required to determine if the article is still deemed problematic in its new form. Sandstein 13:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corvo Attano (Dishonored)[edit]

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

Delete for lack of notability outside of the game universe. This character completely fails the general notability guidelines. There is no independent discussion of the character in reliable sources; there are solely mentions of him in discussions of the game. There is also little to no likelihood of any future significant discussion in reliable sources. Pertinent information about the character is already at Dishonored#Characters. The Corvo Attano (Dishonored) article does not qualify for a speedy A7, because he is not a "real person". No additional redirect to Dishonored is required, as Corvo Attano already redirects there, and has since 2013. A prod is not useful, as it is highly likely that the author of this article, Chackoony, will contest it. Although the article has recently been created, in searching I found nothing that would suggest in any way notability. For example, in the single reference cited in the article, Corvo is not mentioned except for a link to a list of "Corvo's Gear". --Bejnar (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already covered amply in the main article, beyond notability, literally does not exist outside of this universe in these two games. Besides, is a disambig for Corvo Attano, which already rightly redirect to the article about the game. (Good game though. 9.5/10) TimothyJosephWood 16:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Probably actually qualifies for A10, since there is nothing that is mergable, and no reason to redirect the disambiguation. TimothyJosephWood 16:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Chackoony here, creator of the article in question. Corvo Attano is a main character in a series that is on the fringes of the mainstream, and I figured he ought to have his own Wikipedia article, especially because Emily Kaldwin, the second (and most likely canon) protagonist of Dishonored 2 has her own article as well. If you'd like to delete Corvo's article, I would strongly recommend you begin a discussion on deleting Emily's as well. I wasn't aware inasmuch that Corvo lacks critical discussion outside of the game's forums, though I believe having an article for him anyways is useful for anyone who is interested in starting that discussion, considering that the material available on him right now on Wikipedia is not in-depth enough to support people's conversations around him. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor though, so I defer to your decisions and arguments on deciding whether or not to delete this article. I feel that Emily merits her own article because she has been discussed by many as an important step in introducing strong, independent, female protagonists, and that Corvo needs his own article because we need a central article to link to when speaking about his connections with Emily and the Dishonored universe. It seems to me that regardless of the conversations surrounding Corvo, having somewhat detailed information about him is important. Wikipedia ought to have information surrounding a character who is central to a game that's sold millions of copies, one who ties in so deeply to a game that many point to as one of the best "immersive sims" (a genre of games where the player has a lot of freedom, and their choices are reflected through in-game consequences) in the modern times. A character who is like the magnum opus of Harvey Smith, Arkane Studios, etc., all of these being articles that other Wikipedia editors deemed useful to have. Corvo's just a part of the web, in my opinion, and should have an article, if only to describe how the Arkane Studios team settled on him, how they think about him, and how his actions are reflected in the Chaos system of Dishonored, and how that plays back into the immersive sim genre. The full background of where he comes from can be ignored though, such as extensive details on his homeland.

@Chackoony:, maybe the better option here is to move the article to a draft, so that you can work on it more, and maybe submit it through our Articles for Creation board. You are probably right in the sense that a well constructed article with substantial depth like Emily Kaldwin is unlikely to be deleted. But at the same time, a stub on Corvo, like this one is, doesn't really add much beyond the main article. Moving it to a draft for the time being seems like it might be a good compromise. TimothyJosephWood 20:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood:, that sounds good, but can others find and edit the draft? I only wanted to type up the basics, then let others finish off the article.

@Chackoony:, other users can edit it, but because it will be in "draft space" they are unlikely to come across it. You will likely have to appeal for help in an appropriate forum like WikiProject Video games. I will post there now and see if anyone there has interest. TimothyJosephWood 01:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move~~ to Corvo Attano (over the redirect, its history doesn't need to be preserved). There seems to be ample depth of coverage of the character specifically, as with the game's other protagonist Emily Kaldwin. Some non-wiki non-blog coverage that I found: Evening Standard, Game Informer, Polygon.com, PC Gamer, Complex. This isn't my area of expertise so I don't know how reliable we typically consider these sources, but the number of them is a strong indicator of notability and this was just by page 2 of Google. I wouldn't object to moving the stub to draft space to build it out instead, it's just not really necessary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now, considering there's only a sentence or two of content, and an obvious redirect target (the subject's game) exists with far better content already present. Write up a draft and put it through WP:AFC or a WP:VG discussion to see if a separate article is warranted at that point or not. I also support moving it to just Corvo Attano - the disambiguation is not necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Working I haven't saved an article in a few days anyway. TimothyJosephWood 14:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - @Timothyjosephwood: Wow! You finished it! I think we can safely say the article has enough content, and that we've determined its relevancy on Wikipedia well enough to keep it here, right? So can we end the deletion discussion yet?

Keep It's now past the 20 mark. It's probably not comprehensive, but it should be enough that it can hang out in mainspace for others to continue to work on. It definitely adds content well above and beyond the main article for the game series, and it establishes that the character appeared in two games, a comic series, and one novel of a planned trilogy. Should fairly easily be enough for WP:GNG. TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Also moved over redirect. TimothyJosephWood 18:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × a bunch) Keep given Timothyjosephwood's excellent work to expand the article; it has been moved over the redirect to Corvo Attano. ~~@Bejnar: if this expanded version satisfies your concern, can we close this discussion early?~~ Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It needs sources that show notability outside the confines of the game itself. Almost all of the content added to the character article mainly belongs in the game's article—it's basic gameplay that you would expect of any character. Now if there is coverage about the role of Corvo in video game culture or in some kind of depth outside what any video game character would have, then you have a case. We don't just make articles on every character of every major media release. czar 18:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Czar It needs sources that show notability outside the confines of the game itself
Ummm...No? The only thing it is necessary to demonstrate is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nothing in WP:GNG necessitates fictional characters be notable for anything outside of their fictional universe. Compare the multiple article on Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG is a starting point (re-read the notability guideline—it even says it's not a sole requirement/guarantee). Topics are presumed to be important when sources write about them, but when they are only covered as subtopics in context of their parent concepts, we cover them in their parent articles with due weight and only split out (summary style) if warranted by the sources. I can find you a whole lot of coverage on how tracking works in Pokemon Go or on the kinds of real-life interactions the game coordinated, but it doesn't necessarily mean that those concepts warrant their own articles. I can find you a whole lot of coverage specific to the Toad Rally game mode in Super Mario Run—more than that exists for Corvo—but it doesn't mean we need a separate article on it. Final Fantasy characters are subject to the same scrutiny—it's a split out from the game's article based on coverage specific to the characters, ostensibly because there is more to say about the characters than what would be due weight in the parent article. (Though I'd wager that some of those Final Fantasy character articles should be merged back too—some are kept as fait accompli and not because there is cause.) The same principle here: if Corvo is only covered as a character doing character things within Dishonored, it gets covered within the character section of the parent articles. If there is exceptional coverage of the character outside what would be appropriate to cover in the game article itself—such as how Emily Kaldwin was covered for her cultural impact as a female protagonist separate from coverage about the game itself—then there is more cause to split it out of the parent. czar 19:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just let the article speak for itself. Two published books, two announced books, a comic series, and two games. If you can find a place to merge all 18k of that into, then go for it. But I suspect you put more time into typing your criticism than you did reviewing the article. TimothyJosephWood 21:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources don't count towards notability. That he appeared in media is the same as any character who recurs in a series—it pertains to a section/article about the series, not to character notability. If those pieces of media are important, they will be covered in a section/article about the series. czar 03:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move the goal post a few more times?

Me: There are lots of good sources, easily meets GNG.

You: GNG is not enough, you need to show that he has importance outside the game.

Me: Look at all this other stuff he appears in.

You: Those are primary sources and don't count toward GNG.

Come now. TimothyJosephWood 11:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that your argument, applied consistently, would delete literally thousands of articles on video game and comic book characters. Marvel characters appear in Marvel media, probably because Marvel literally owns them. TimothyJosephWood 11:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Total mischaracterization. Appearing in comics related to the series is by no measure "importance outside the game". The Notability guideline states clearly that sources affiliated or primary to the subject don't count towards notability the same way that a school's alumni magazine doesn't confer notability on the school. czar 07:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect or draft~~: Firstly, I want to say I appreciate the effort put into creating the article, as well as the effort put into expanding it. But ultimately I don't think there's proper coverage to justify an article on the character, or at least not separate from the games proper. Most sources discuss his powers which are, true, a part of his character, but also vital parts of the game -- and often discussed in terms of general game design and player expression heavily divorced from Corvo himself. In short, I would expect most appropriate analysis of his powers and how they interact with the game and are developed to be on the articles for Dishonored and Dishonored 2 -- and indeed, when discussing Blink we slip into development of it while being Daud.

The tidbit about Corvo's actions as vengeance is interesting, but I've found little else to properly expand these elements, and again it's something that's heavily tied into analysis of Dishonored's main themes that I'd probably expect to find on there first and foremost. (This article might be of use if exploring this angle, incidentally.) The discussion of his various appearances in tie-in media feel pretty weak as well. None of them have received much critical attention, whether positively or negatively or even completely neutrally, so honestly a sentence on Dishonored 2's article about tie-in media starring the PCs being made is probably enough, and if anything more than that is needed it'd probably be best suited to a general series page.

On some of the sources found so far, very little do discuss the character in depth. It's not just a matter of finding any blanket coverage: I would prefer a shorter section, if it provides genuine discussion of a character, in a larger article over newssites reporting on a trailer about the character being released. I'd like to proven wrong here and I have managed to find other articles covering the character (e.g. [36][37][38][39]), but have failed to find enough to personally justify Corvo a separate article from his games. I do see some possibility of potential that I'm not really opposed to drafting it for further development for anyone wanting to pursue it further, but it's not enough for me to endorse a "keep" here. ...Finally, apologies for the wall of text, but evidently I like to type. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 14:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded since I wrote the above, and I'm no longer necessarily opposed to keeping it, but as it stands this article still feels heavily flawed -- and certainly not close to GA status. The character's notability is barely proven; yes, the article has 50 references. As I run through them all, the majority of them are completely unrelated to the character. We have 6 that are announcements or reviews of the comic, which hardly cover the character at all. Useful for verification, yes, but certainly not notability -- the idea that a character should be notable because a review in passing mentioned the plot is laughable. The article has been refbombed -- it overloads on meaningless unnecessary citations to give the appearance of notability, when little actually prove it when properly examined. Then there's the coverage of his powers, which again I question if said coverage is actually focused on the character, when most of the attention is on the general open gameplay of Dishonored. The idea we're holding this to another standard than other articles ring hollow; similar deletion discussions are happening time and time again, and articles with improper references are almost always wiped out. The precedent, is as much WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, would've been to delete this article as it originally stood. The existence of many Marvel characters who lack any references is the problem, and it's a well-known and accepted one that little effort has been made on due to the immense size of the Marvel world and the nature of a wiki. Truthfully, I doubt whether Emily Kaldwin is properly notability enough for an article, but that's a matter to deal with another time. The appearances in other tie-in media is irrelevant: none of them even have their own article, nor I doubt do any of them really need them, and thus arguments that all this content here about them must remain ring hollow. Again, if said coverage is necessarily, a series article would be better created, than awkwardly contained in this article about one character.

Finally, some of the sources used I question. I don't see anything too weird, but what makes PCGamesN or Gamespur reliable? Yes, I realise that the TF2 mask is obviously true, but you may as well cite TF2 there. And while Point and Click Bait is a satire and can be assumed to not be lying about its joke, what makes their satire worth including?

In any case, I'm no longer of the opinion this article must be deleted, though I find some of the arguments used to keep it questionable. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 08:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do question the removal of gaming sites as unreliable, including the removal of a satirical website for publishing a satirical story. Niche topics are covered in niche media, and it's reminiscent of the exhausting AfD for Lustboy a few months ago, where editors completely unfamiliar with the competitions and the game wanted to go so far as to question whether ESPN was truly independent. Beyond that, a satirical website as a source for its own story is very near WP:SELFPUB territory. I also find the drive by ((cn)) tagging as flatly lazy, and like the edit overall, a thinly veiled attempt to press a thumb on the scale which, admin or no, begins to push the limits of assuming good faith.

Moving to draft is more of a sentence to purgatory than anything. I have absolute confidence that the article, unchanged, would sail through AfC with a wink and a nod. That is, were it not weighed down by a prior AfD, that at some point, just became too long to attract much attention. And there here we are again.

And to be clear, where we are is holding this article to a completely different standard than scores of articles on other video game and comic characters, many of which are sourced only to the primary sources themselves (click around on Marvel or DC articles for a while). Moreso, a completely different standard than the character's daughter, whose supposed cultural impact amounts to a few sentences of oh boy, they made a girl character and didn't screw it up, and who, in every way, is objectively a more minor character in the universe than the current one.

But for my part, I'll have to bow out until at least Monday. Apparently my wife and daughter are into this Christmas thing. Personally, I think it's a fad. TimothyJosephWood 15:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After a shower and some thought, precisely what I am implying above is that if the user (who I assume is following this conversation since they felt the need to drive by some time later) does not feel the need to self revert, then I will oblige them a click of the mouse. Of course that is assuming they don't have a well thought out rationale for why a video game website would fail to do what little due diligence is surely required in reporting on abilities in a video game, or why a satirical website lacks whatever conceivable editorial oversight would be needed to make things up. TimothyJosephWood 16:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The video game reliable sources guideline explains why those sites aren't reliable. They have no reputation for fact-checking or editorial quality. czar 07:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You see, the problem here is that, like synopses for books and movies, content that is covered in the actual text and dialogue of the game, may be cited to the primary source itself. So providing a secondary source, even one you find personally distasteful, is beyond what is actually required. Similarly, in the space between WP:SELFPUB and WP:MEDRS, is a range where the quality of source must rise to meet the magnitude of the claim, with exceptionally minor claims requiring exceptionally ordinary sources. For further guidance on sourcing for video games, please see the video game reliable sources guideline. TimothyJosephWood 04:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should not have to point out again, as I did above, that a redirect is not necessary as Corvo Attano already redirects to the game, and there is no ambiguity. --Bejnar (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page has since been moved to Corvo Attano. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dishonored#Characters (the main game/series topic), as reinforced by the elaboration above. There remains a demonstrated lack of coverage dedicated to the game's character so as to warrant a content split from the section where such text would rest in the article on the main game/series. czar 18:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at this point is absurd. A 30k article with 50 references. Finish the equipment and first game sections, and find an editor with access to the full text of the comics and novels, and it's well on it's way to a GA review, not to mention that the second game was just released, and most of what will be written about the character's role in it hasn't yet been written, as well as two books set to be released next year. I would love to see someone ignore this nomination, and nominate it again, and see it get laughed out of AfD. TimothyJosephWood 00:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dishonored#Characters - While the work Timothyjosephwood has done on the article is impressive, his argument for keeping it boils down to the premise that any article which has had a certain amount of quality editing put into it must be kept, and I don't find that to be valid. Corva Attano is essentially just an aspect of the video game Dishonored and its licensed adaptations, and thus there's no reason why any notable content about the character should be reiterated in a separate article rather than simply included in the Dishonored article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin IIIa, My argument is very simply that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The argument from article content is not for the notability of the subject, but the practicality of a merger, that is, you cannot merge a 3000 word article into a 300 word section. TimothyJosephWood 15:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, honest question, why would you redirect to Dishonored, and not the sequel? TimothyJosephWood 01:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - Can we bin this deletion discussion now, @Timothyjosephwood:? At this point, it doesn't seem like anyone's got any good arguments left for keeping it under the shadow of deletion. Also, Timothy has done a fantastic job of populating the page with details and references, so I see no problem with article shortness anymore.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Computer Nut[edit]

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

Not notable and no reference given. Redhat101 (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK this has been the subject of school instruction at at least two institutions [40]. Plenty of coverage in regards to the educational sector [41]. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, reviewed by Kirkus Reviews (yes i am one of the few, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flatlander: Book One) - "The who's-on-the-computer? gambit, and the true-to-character humor holds up well enough to keep readers going--even if the thwarted space-comedian bombs out.", tiny one from Publishers Weekly (it might be a summary, pw sometimes does this online) - """saucily told, sparely written"" stories.", won an Arkansas state children's award and reviewed by Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books - Byars bio, and reviewed by School Library Journal, plus as a sidepoint, WorldCat shows it is held by over 900 libraries. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't count Publishers Weekly and Kirkus blurbs towards notability, especially towards NBOOK—they review titles in little depth and with little discrimination, compared for instance with even that School Lib J review. czar 19:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Coolabahapple. I added a review from The Times Literary Supplement to the article as well. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:37, 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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dekker Dreyer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. All sources are trivial. HappyGoLucky007 (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three nominations by three accounts, all of which appear to have done nothing on Wikipedia besides nominate this article at AfD? Sourcing seems fine for a niche subject. I also suspect someone needs to find a more productive hobby than nominating articles of people they don't personally like. TimothyJosephWood 15:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is all trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two sources I recently added are full interviews directly about Mr. Dreyer and the "trivial" coverage is all from well known reputable sources. More than enough to meet the criteria for inclusion. It should also be noted that over the years digging into the history I discovered that many sources have been culled as dead links as they are no longer online. I read that notability is not temporary. A consistent history of being referenced in articles in his field for over ten years, including things like Variety, Deadline, Wired, The Advocate, feels more than enough to keep. --2605:E000:90D9:F700:FD17:9CB1:FFBC:210D (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a link to an article from December 13th I found. It's a long profile piece on We Are Indie Horror. This whole thing feels dumb. He's obviously well known in horror and sci-fi circles and the coverage, like I said above, is great because it also spills over into mainstream sources. I think this was a bad faith nomination.--2605:E000:90D9:F700:51FC:C9D8:716B:90C2 (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[redacted] Withdrawn. I don't care. [redacted] --HappyGoLucky007 (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator is now indeffed for disruptive editing. It certainly appears from the content of some edits that this was a bad faith nomination, as the IP suggested. Meters (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at those diffs... yikes. Thanks Meter. 2600:1012:B004:408:C5E4:D256:E159:6C37 (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be enough meat to show notability now.Meters (talk) 08:27, 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 redirect to Annotation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic annotation[edit]

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

Basically a micro-essay with no real context. Unclear how it could ever be expanded. South Nashua (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a merge or redirect to Annotation. I see Uanfala has just deletion sorted it for computing but I thought it was linguistics -- anyway, both are sections in Annotation. Literary annotations, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm okay with withdrawing and making a redirect. South Nashua (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor stub with no indication of independent notability. Little more than WP:DICTDEF. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:29, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WaSSIP- Badulla[edit]

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

Non-notable water improvement project. Fails WP:GNG. Also, at least half of the article is a copyvio from here. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom - fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete partly because it's not clearly notable, partly because of the copy-violations (which nudge it into WP:SPEEDY territory), and partly because the article is almost incomprehensible because of its lack of structure and clarity. --Slashme (talk) 09:48, 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. czar 19:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum harmonic oscillator with an applied linear field[edit]

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

No apparent significance or WP:notability. Author of cited source created the article: WP:COI; [42]. The creator of the article appears to be WP:SPA; [43]. This article was previously deleted and redirected [44], only to be restored (under a new name) [45]. Overly technical: WP:technical. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious case of using Wikipedia as an academic publisher. This is derived from the article creator's doctoral dissertation with minor leavening from graduate textbooks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:27, 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.