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

The result was merge to List of Decepticons. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insecticons[edit]

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

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

This grouping does not establish independent notability. TTN (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. BOZ (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Decepticons. Article is poorly sourced and consists almost entirely of fancruft and original research. This isn't a wiki. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It kind of is :) Josh Milburn (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL at Josh Milburn - I didn't want to be the one to say anything.  ;) BOZ (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Decepticons - fails the notability guidelines for a standalone article through a lack of coverage in reliable sources. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 02:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per previous editors, doesn't need a stand-alone article DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:25, 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 merge to List of Dragonlance characters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tika Waylan[edit]

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

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

This article fails to establish notability. The two "reception" sources are fluff that take trivial quotes and puff them up as if they are important. They're nothing more than passing mentions in articles about the series and don't even deserve attention in the article. TTN (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I disagree with the nominator on the validity and usefulness of the sources, and I believe they help the article meet WP:N. Failing that, and without the discovery of more and better sources, the most severe outcome I can envision here is a merge to List of Dragonlance characters. BOZ (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Dragonlance characters. Not notable enough for individual article, which is poorly sourced. No viable third-party sources on the character were found, so this hardly qualifies for WP:GNG unless I'm missing something. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 03:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those would be the IO9 and AV Club references, references 3 and 4 as of the current version, clearly labeled in the reception section. Was that what you were missing? Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am well aware of those, yes, but just two sources do not notability make. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but "multiple" includes "two" in English. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Weak merge. Two reliable sources about the character and I'd agree that the GNG is met. But two articles about broader topics in which the character is mentioned is not sufficient. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." -- WP:GNG Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's about weight and scope. Those sources are trivial passing mentions with no larger context than describing the scenario of the story. It's like making an article on a random movie character based off of two reviews that each mention the character one time. That's not how things work. The easiest way to look at it is that these sources wouldn't even be used if this article had an abundance of third party sources to establish notability. These two are just being puffed up under the pretense of being important because apparently nobody actually wants to work on the few dozen D&D fiction articles that could actually be easily improved. 21:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Jclemens, I agree with that two sources would be sufficient (as you say, two is multiple) if these sources covered the character at any length. The full extent of the sources' coverage, as far as I can see, is this:

        A V Club: "Charismatic characters abound. The barmaid-turned-swordswoman Tika—whose no-nonsense fierceness and agency, not to mention her job as a waitress, reminded me of my mom when I was a kid—gets a compelling story arc. It isn’t exactly as evolved in terms of feminism as it could be, but is still miles ahead of many popular fantasy novels of the era. And Tasslehoff Burrfoot, the group’s...."

        io9: "And they're joined the Plainsfolk Riverwind and Goldmoon, so-called "barbarians" in a strange land, the spoiled elven princess Laurana, and Tika, a barmaid who has been swept up in the action. ... And they aren't token female characters, not mere metaphors for the appeal of easy evil versus hard-won good. We meet plenty of interesting women along the way: the prideful Alhana Starbreeze, the tragic Silvara, and Tika, who in times of peace is more hearth mother than warrior, but when pressed in action will pick up a knife (or a frying pan) to defend herself and her friends). The women of Krynn are much like the men—no better and no worse. (Although some of them did tend to be a bit less dressed than their male counterparts in the artwork.)"

      • This is great for discussions of the character in a list (either freestanding or attached to the article on the novel series) but I'm not convinced that they meet the hazy "significance" bar in the case of the GNG. That said, there is some coverage, and what's there is good, so I'll change my vote to a weak merge. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per J Milburn. The sources are great, but I agree with J Milburn in that information can be attached to a discussion of the character in some sort of list rather than an independent article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - J Milburn showed pretty clearly that the sources being found for this character are not substantial enough to support an article, being, in the end, trivial one or two sentence mentions in larger articles. Enough to support a merge, but not a separate article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Rafah[edit]

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

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

Article's premise is that he is politician but fails WP:POLITICIAN as seat was won by Vice Mayor: Teresa O'Neill. No longer notable. scope_creep (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability is not temporary. Sources that are provided provide a reasonble quality of third party coverage, meeting WP:POLITICIAN criteria 3. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 02:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He was never elected and worked in a exceedingly minor role of caseworker. scope_creep (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• He does seem to narrowly meet WP:BASIC as an advocate and notable 'local Afghan refugee success story,' if you will, in the area. Weak keep. There's just enough coverage, for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet the notability requirements for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's lead is indeed that he is a politician. It then goes to expand on his work and notability as an advocate. So it is not quite correct that the article's "premise" or thesis is only that he is a politician, as the nominator suggests. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The whole article is artifice. It gives the effect of making you believe he is a politician and that he some senior or past member of government. He is neither. It is a complete subversion. Tenuous notability, like name dropping, spun up into something bigger than it's really is. WP:Politician policy doesn't apply in this context. He never won the elections, and he worked as caseworker, outside the political stream, a problem solver essentially, so no undertaking the art of being a politician. No politiking. scope_creep (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so worried about what to call him, just that he got enough press in the San Francisco Bay area, according to Gnews, that I thought he might barely creep past WP:BASIC, regardless of why. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per scope_creep. Fails WP:Politician, fails notability. He lost the election and holds no political office. Seems conflated to make him appear far more than he really is. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate for a city council seat — and Santa Clara isn't a large enough city to confer notability on its city councillors even if he had won the seat (which he evidently did not.) But there's really just not much here on which to hang a "preexisting notability for other things" claim — "policy advisor to a US Representative" is not an automatic inclusion freebie either, and there's really very little substantive coverage of him besides purely local and WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election campaign itself. So there's simply no strong evidence that he would pass WP:GNG for any other reason. As always, Wikipedia is not a free webhost for political hopefuls' campaign brochures. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spag Heddy[edit]

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

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

New article. Not enough to satisfy notability. Started recording in 2015 Fails WP:MUSIC and hence WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No sources. Speedy deletion. Scorpion293 (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No independent coverage or sign of notability. South Nashua (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails notability DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:25, 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. While there is one support for a merge, the content itself is a spinoff and therefore can be added back to the main article through basic reverts of the timming. The arguments for delete appear to have stronger foundation in policy. —SpacemanSpiff 00:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Income Tax Department (India) raids 2016-2017[edit]

Income Tax Department (India) raids 2016-2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Junosoon (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A partial spinoff of a section of Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation bolstered into an article.I find little encycloepadic value of a list of all the persons who were raided by IT dept. oficials in a particular year.Wikipedia is not a chronological repository of all income tax raids performed in a particular time duration in a region and the details of the money thus recovered.and the raids are a notable aspect! Will the article-creator create similar articles about the income-tax raids that has taken place every year? Bombarding an article with numerous WP:RS hardly points to any notabilty on such general issues.Also see WP:NOTNEWS.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 10:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree : This article is about Income Tax raids,financial year 2016-2017 not just after 8 November 2016. 8 November 2016, notification has nothing to with Income Tax Raids, that notification was limited to legal character of banknote.

This article covers details about, raids conducted by Income Tax Department, which is an official work of Income Tax Department,.Junosoon (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Junosoon:-Maybe, you can start a page about all the incidents of thefts etc. that happened in India.(They are well reported by WP:RS and there are official investigations into every one of them by the concerned police department!)Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 10:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Request to nominator: I think this is borderline disruptive or Wikipedia:Competence is required, on nomination as Wikipedia:Content forking is not an eligible reason to nominated for deletion, the nominator can share views/ issues on talk page of article, which are welcomed if any improvement to article is needed.Junosoon (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Junosoon:-Well, I may be incompetent-at least definitely in my failure to bring every little issue to the WP:ANI!Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 10:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Is this some sort of personal attack, you are creating here little issue to the WP:ANI, I think if that is the reason of your nomination!, it is getting very messy.If you have any personal problem discuss on talk page, or article talk page .Junosoon (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Junosoon:-There's a difference between sarcasm and personal attack! Let us not go off-topic but wait for the consensus of the community on the issue.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 11:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as NOTNEWS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:54, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a redundant content fork and per WP:NOTNEWS. The article does not cover an actual notable coordinated law enforcement operation, but rather a list of raids that happened to be in the same time period (no surprise there). We already have an article on the overarching event and it's Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation (specifically, sections #Effects and aftermath and #Evasion attempts). Daß Wölf 00:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Article under construction. In light of above discussion, the content forking complain A partial spinoff of a section of Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation has been addressed, by removing it from article. The new sections are under construction, and will reimproved as per discussion. Thanks for your cooperation. Junosoon (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong merge into Income Tax Department and create a redirect as this will benefit both the articles. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · ) 03:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is nothing notable in raids conducted by Income Tax Department in a particular year. It does not warrant a separate page. At best merge into Income Tax DepartmentChunnuBhai (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ChunnuBhai: Did You check g hits, of Income Tax raids before commenting on notability. Junosoon (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Junosoon: 'Income Tax raids' is a very generic term. It will obviously have many results. No of Google hits is not a fool proof measure of notability. ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ChunnuBhai: Have you verified, contents in the article with, inline citations and sources in the article.! Yes or Not!?Junosoon (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mere existence of citations does not ensure notability which may warrant a separate page for 2016-2017 . If the modus operandi had been completely different from earlier years, that would atleast differentiate 2016-2017 from earlier years. As i may have pointed out at other places on wikipedia, anything and everything related to demonetisation may not warrant a separate page. ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ChunnuBhai:, It sounds, very discouraging for other editors, if you have some sort of conflict of interest or ownership of content in demonetisation ( which one!!) kindly be specific, As i may have pointed out at other places on wikipedia, anything and everything related to demonetisation may not warrant a separate pageJunosoon (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ChunnuBhai: Your concerns for being specific on 2016-2017, have been answered, as this year operations have been a Joint Operations with other agencies, including data mining tracking .Junosoon (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joint operations dont cut the ice for wikipedia notability, they happen all the time. None of the law enforcement agencies in any country work in isolation. I definitely dont have any ownership on any topic, but looking at your contribs, they are definitely bordering on mindless edits and page creations without content. eg The Indian Coinage Act, 1906 , Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ,Ajmer–Sealdah Express 2016 accident ChunnuBhai (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : The article has been addressed with issues of Content forking, notability issues and Not Newspaper, further improvements are welcomed.Junosoon (talk) 04:50, 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. "Keep" arguments have generally been pretty flimsy but there's no consensus for deletion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Soros[edit]

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

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

Based fromthe user's patterns and activities, there's enough to suggest this may have in fact been a paid advertisement and, about the article, the apPROD still applies because the fact there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else. What's listed here is still trivial and unconvincing and searches mirrored this. There's no compromises if WP:NOT is involved and, in this state, this seems like a business listing exactly. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As usual the nominator is using the Eric Morecambe style of writing in his deletion nomination (all the right words—but not necessarily in the right order) so it's a bit difficult to pin down exactly what we are supposed reply to, but it seems that the contention is that this was produced for advertising purposes. Apart from any other consideration, does anyone really believe that George Soros's son needs to advertise on Wikipedia? The article cites plenty of reliable sources confirming notability, and is much less promotional than most of our articles about financiers and political donors. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

86.17.222.157, is that a vote to "keep"?--—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a comment that this shouldn't be dismissed as "a paid advertisement", but I'm unsure about notability independent of his father. It's very difficult to discern whether most of the available sources only discuss him at all because he is his father's son, or whether they are based on his independent notability but mention his father in addition to this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pases WP:GNG. Sources have significant coverage (whole articles) from The New York Times and the Washington Post. Stickee (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am very skeptical that the notability may be derived from his famous father. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I am sorry, but I'm not getting the point. Are you saying that if the press he receives is due to his being George Soros' son, then that does not mean he is notable? Or, are you saying that you don't think his press coverage / all of the coverage is because he is his father's son?--—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Most of his press does seem to put him in context of his father (including article titles used in the article right now), but there is also press on HighBeam (28 articles) and in the news (104 articles) that mention him without naming his father, George (or anyone named George, for that matter).that I queried to exclude "George" (but doesn't always exclude him). So, I am going to start there and see what can be built in the article to prove WP:GNG and/or other notability guidelines.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - strike out + added info in underline.—CaroleHenson (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What I am finding is that he is most noteworthy in his role trying to shape American politics - particularly eliminating the electoral college and putting organizations in place to offset the Supreme Court ruling that removed limits on the amounts of money that billionaires could contribute to campaigns and drive election results. There is plenty out there about that the effectiveness of his Friends of Democracy PAC aka the anti-PAC PAC (98 news items) and his role with Every Voice, National Popular Vote Inc., and other political advocacy groups IMO to meet WP:GNG, but I'm not enjoying the topic enough to build it up even though it might be deleted. So, I'll wait and see how the vote turns out.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sources show he is notable independent of his father.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Unfortunately the fact remains that the subject passes WP:GNG, even based on the sources cited. The article needs a serious rewrite though - perhaps the remedy here is a WP:PROMO tag. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a question about the promotional tone to Talk:Jonathan Soros.—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: Fiachra10003, Regarding your comment The article needs a serious rewrite though - perhaps the remedy here is a WP:PROMO tag at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Soros, what do you think sounds too promotional?—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Too many vague adjectives: "major" donor ... "sweeping" campaign finance reforms - without any specificity. Citizens United v. FEC was a "sweeping" campaign finance reform - has he supported that? 2. Unsourced statements like: "He supports movements like the National Popular Vote" 3. Weird stuff like ".. it and TCS Capital invested Rs. 30 crore in the online fashion retailer, largely mens wear. Yepme had a goal of obtaining $100 in funding in 2015.[11]" Well, a crore is a unit of measure that it fairly unintelligible to non-Indian readers; $100? - well, my 6-year-old has a goal of obtaining $100 in funding for a new Barbie Castle, too. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made these edits.—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources such as Reuters indicate notability and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing rather than deletion, per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - The subject is George Soro's son and has an impressive flow of reliable sources. Nothing much needs to be said. Scorpion293 (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion293 How is this a policy-based comment? We never accept articles because of the father's occupation, and our stated notabilites state this, WP:NOTINHERITED and it's not negotiable with "nothing needs to be said". We haven't accepted articles for the Gates family children, so we can't simply say "It's notable because of their parents".

SwisterTwister talk 19:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister Did you forget to read the other half of the sentence? Because it's the reason why I chose to keep the article. Scorpion293 (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Geo Soros article. Notability comes from the father. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think about what his notability looks like if we take is father out of the equation, and the work that he's done forming the PAC and other political advocacy work, I believe make him notable.

If his article content is merged into the George Soros article, what does that look like, an entire section for the son, pare all this info down to a couple of sentences?—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Simply citing GNG or "But his father is notable!" carries no weigh the concerns here concluding not only the fact this was by a multi-account spammer but the fact there's simply no genuine substance for the man's own convincibg article, apart from his father. It's fair to state the Keep comments have'nt been policy-based or countering the serious concerns here. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that his article should not be based upon his father's notability, per my statement I think about what his notability looks like if we take is father out of the equation, and the work that he's done forming the PAC and other political advocacy work, I believe make him notable.

I didn't just state GNG, I provided queries of that excluded the use of the word "George" HighBeam (28 articles) and in the news (104 articles) and articles just relevant to his Friends of Democracy PAC aka the anti-PAC PAC (98 news items), which have some overlap with the first 2 queuries. And now, queries based upon his name, without filtering, I get 1430 news articles and 260 books. There are 27 hits at the New York Times, some of which were written by Jonathan Soros.—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I will work on this today and hopefully his notability will become clearer. As an FYI, this article has consistently had about 200 hits per day and peaked at 2,100 in a day in November, not huge, but a number of people are coming to Wikipedia to read about him.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Added vote - saw I never voted.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:56, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lache railway station[edit]

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

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

Unsourced proposed railway station. No immediate pings on Google. Nordic Nightfury 07:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This station was once proposed long ago but is not in current plans. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Saltney railway station#Present where this proposal already gets a sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails sources and notability guidelines. Doesn't exist and appears it's off the books for development in future. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above - Fails GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:06, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Film Critics Society[edit]

Las Vegas Film Critics Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A redlink editor has been going around over the last couple of days deliberately recreating multiple deleted pages of non-notable, minor, regional film-critic groups that get no coverage for the organizations themselves and seldom get their awards mentioned in national press. WikiProject Film consensus in 2015 was to relieve the bloat of non-notable awards in film articles. But publicists like to tout awards and fans of particular films love to heap as many awards onto those films' pages as they can, no matter how minor or meaningless. By recreating multiple deleted pages in one day, that redlink editor is disrupting Wikipedia. Tenebrae (talk) 20:59, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there are third-party sources that indicate the notability of these awards. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No in-depth sources other than the one primary source. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 331dot. Anyone can make a group or an awards show, doesn't mean that it means anything. South Nashua (talk) 13:07, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zycus[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:COMPANY, as tagged since January 2014. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets WP:NCORP as per the sources in the article. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article meets WP:CORP standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:35, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garikapati Subba Narasimha Sastry[edit]

Garikapati Subba Narasimha Sastry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Quick Google search provided no clear notability, at least on the person with this name within the article (apparently someone with a comparable name is a notable chemist?) I'll withdraw the nom if something can be found, but the article's been up for a week. That information probably would have been added by now. South Nashua (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:13, 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) 09:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Underhill[edit]

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

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

Article fails to establish notability, Subject seems to fail WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. A Google search produced this article and an Amazon hit for her books. News search had no results. The source listed in article and the external link do not mention subject at all. CBS527^Talk 20:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Her work appears to have made negligible impact in books or scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - I think that there's enough information to expand the article a little, but I am not seeing a clear sign of notability based upon the news, book, scholar sources.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails academic and author. Not notable. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - assuming she was chair of a department, that would only be one factor towards WP:PROF. I'm sympathetic.... Bearian (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cabaret Maxime[edit]

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

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

PROD was removed by author. Non-notable film, Fails GNG and NFILM. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The infobox states that the release date is TBD, which implies that the film hasn't been released. Unreleased films are usually not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Royal Book Company[edit]

New Royal Book Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Could not find any secondary source mentions. agtx 19:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, fails notability guidelines. Reads like an advert. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails notability KylieTastic (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation 2 DVD-9 games[edit]

List of PlayStation 2 DVD-9 games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:LISTCRUFT. Trivial inclusion criteria composed of original research. Entirely unsourced and not a set that is covered by reliable independent sources thus failing WP:LISTN. The1337gamer (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. This is a trivial trait of PS2 games, unsourced, and not commonly covered by reliable sources. (Occasionally they may mention it, but I'm guessing if you compiled a complete list, you'd only be able to source a handful of them.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; fails WP:LISTN Spiderone 13:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:LISTCRUFT and fails WP:RS. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Mendoza[edit]

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

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

This page was clearly created by the subject for self promotion and is not a notable individual. In the two films the subject is listed in, multiple of her co-stars who are more successful do not have a wikipedia article. If every actor in any small to no budget film was listed as "notable" for a wikipedia article, there would be thousands of useless articles. GeraldoAbbson (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete maybe a TOOSOON, but definitely not yet given what's there and what's likely out there. South Nashua (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation 2 CD-ROM games[edit]

List of PlayStation 2 CD-ROM games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:LISTCRUFT. Trivial inclusion criteria composed of original research. Entirely unsourced and not a set that is covered by reliable independent sources thus failing WP:LISTN. The1337gamer (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. This is a trivial trait of PS2 games, unsourced, and not commonly covered by reliable sources. (Occasionally they may mention it, but I'm guessing if you compiled a complete list, you'd only be able to source a handful of them.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - trivial trait of PS2 games, consequently failing the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:N - consequently, not notable. In addition, verifiability is an issue - however, it is possible if one was to go to every listed games cover possibly. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 02:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Spiderone 13:42, 24 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 Glendaruel#Music. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Glendaruel Highlanders[edit]

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

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

No particular claim to notability. Ostrichyearning (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Glendaruel#Music. The article is too small, it isn’t well sourced, so I do not think it should stay as a separate article. However, as a paragraph in the Glendaruel-article (which is partly already there) it can be a useful addition. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Jeff5102 to Glendaruel article. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VY Orionis[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO. Waaaay below naked eye brightness. No entries in popular catalogues such as HR. The current sources are a Simbad link, a 1918 articles about a different star, and some surveys that happen to mention this star among many. I couldn't find anything more compelling, scientific or popular. Previous PROD removed by creator. Lithopsian (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: concur with nom. No significant coverage found. Praemonitus (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Front Montgomery[edit]

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

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

Was de-prodded without reason. Other than press releases like marketwire and another marketwire in the Philippines New Digest, a personal bio, and a commercial link, the search engines returned zero hits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Lots of coverage in Thai, even long after her active years. Most are celebrity gossip pieces though. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of notability... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:50, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh Aviation[edit]

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

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

In my mind, this article is blatantly promotional and should be deleted. Do others have the same opinion? Rogermx (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. I know that invoking TNT is not popular in AfD discussions, but this article is this bad. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This reads as though its a resume for the company. Per WP:PROMO, delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's no assertion of non-notability in the nomination. Edit it down to remove anything overtly promotional. The first part at least is not that bad, i haven't read it all. Don't waste other editors time with cycle of AFDs and re-creations, and don't try to force other editors to clean up upon your demand either. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --doncram 02:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I have read it all and most of the article is strictly promotional material. Frankly, I don't think it is a waste of time to rid Wikipedia of articles that violate its rules. Rogermx (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Doncram and WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. If the information comes back, then deal with the users that are violating the rules directly. - BilCat (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- promotionalism is a perfectly valid rationale for deletion. WP:PROMO is a policy, while WP:GNG is a guideline. The former trumps the latter. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a policy regarding article content, not necessarily a reason for deletion. In this case, there is an older version to revert to which ought to meet the policy, and that has been done. - BilCat (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuked and restarted from an old revision. Daß Wölf 01:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with old version provided by Daß Wölf. Thank you for your intervention. Rogermx (talk) 16:25, 24 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 Demon lord. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyxali[edit]

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

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Demon lord, where she is already listed. An extremely minor fictional character that has only appeared in a very small handful of D&D products, and is mentioned in zero non-primary sources. There is so little information about this character, even in the D&D books she appears in, there's really nothing here even worth merging into the redirect target. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per the above Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empower Mississippi[edit]

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

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

Not only worse that this was an apparent paid advertisement by a paid user, but all of the sources are simply local and trivial, coming from local attention, and the 2 newly added sources, WashingtonTimes and AssociatedPress are in fact the same one, the same local news article, so if that's honestly the best we can add, it surely emphasizes this is simply a locally active group. I myself could've added any other local news stories as shown by GoogleNews, but none of them establish actual substance and there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else, regardless, especially now that WP:NOT applies in that we're not a PR webhost, damned be any attempts at it. SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of available sources. The topic also passes WP:AUD, having received coverage in national news sources, such as Associated Press and USA Today. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and analysis - As my nomination and searches show, all of this is still local news stories including the USAToday which explicitly states "From local Clarion Ledger, through Associated Press", hence not an actual major source apart from it being republished local news. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The byline of the USA Today article states the headline of the article and "Geoff Pender , The Clarion-Ledger". It does not state "From local Clarion Ledger, through Associated Press" anywhere on the page, nor does it have any mention of the Associated Press (AP). USA Today felt that the article deserved national coverage, and published it. Also, this article was originally published by the AP. The coverage received still meets WP:AUD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - USAToday published it because Gannett owns both USAToday and the ClarionLedger (a known fact), hence why it was bundled together; even then, USAToday in fact accepts tips for publishing so anyone could've suggested it for publishing, hence not a contributing factor for notability. Next, AssociatedPress itself, as the name shows, is a group of news and their journalists that will compile news together, hence not always a separate source. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article from Associated Press above was written by AP staff writer Jeff Amy. This article is not written by a compilation of authors; only one author wrote it. It is a valid article that serves to demonstrate notability. Furthermore, the sources I provided above are examples; more are available and easily found. The topic continues to meet WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:AUD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes GNG from sources already showing in the footnotes. This group is the subject of multiple pieces of substantial, independently published sources of presumed reliability. These don't have to be the New York Times or Time magazine, these can be local. Carrite (talk) 12:05, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True & Co.[edit]

True & Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There's enough here to suggest the authoring user was a paid advertiser and the fact this only focuses with what the company wants to advertise to clients and investors, that's unsurprising; my own searches found nothing but a trivial mention from over 3 years ago. None of this establishes actual substance because it's all published or republished or simply triviality, and it's non-negotiable when considering WP:NOT. There's no compromises with such blatancy damning as "The company uses a questionnaire and associated algorithm to recommend bra sizes to customers" and "True & Co.’s innovation is to put a batch of bras into customers’ hands so they can choose what fits best". SwisterTwister talk 18:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and analysis - Not only are these the same sources in the current article or also found in GoogleNews I showed above, the other ones are clear interviews such as Fortune, NYPost, Bloomberg and Glamour; Glamour itself is a clear gossip column, advertising the services to its viewers, but then the NYPost (which is notoriously known for such gossip entertainment columns, then is a clear "life story" of the business owner herself. When there's a sheer consistency in the same interviewed business information especially about flashy specifics about the business and owner, as these articles show, it shows only one person authored it and it's the company itself. Especially, because we've established as it is, when there's such a noticeable space of time between time, such as a year or two in between, it shows it was obvious attempts at needing PR, not that there was ingenuity. Even if there were doubled the amount of this, it would still not mean anything if it's still naturally PR, exactly why we use WP:NOT as it explicitly states "Wikipedia is a PR collection for company information, specifics and other business information as if in a YellowPages". SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles that contain some interview content, but also significant non-interview prose, are not interview-only as some sort of default. It is common for news media to discuss matters with subjects they cover; it would be quite biased for them not to. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per notability shown by NA1000's analysis above. ST's analysis is illogical and biased. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Adam Barnett[edit]

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

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

Non-notable actor. Has only appeared in 1 film (as noted by IMDB). Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable actor. Article is bloated with content unrelated to subject and includes his website as a source. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a long list of name-dropping does not bring this up to notability. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 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. Uncontested after several weeks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ASD STAN[edit]

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

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

Hard to find any third-party sources online, so notability is an issue. There is a passing mention here and it is ISO-affiliated but that is all I could find.

Searching under the old acronym AECMA gives this which is a start but still falls well short of notability. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While no doubt important within its technical/engineering user environment, has not generated significant, reliable, independent coverage. Importance is not a guarantee of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat Rajputs[edit]

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

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

I couldn't verify that it is notable Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable sources provided and I couldn't find any myself; the article appears to be original research Spiderone 14:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't prove it, but based on the formatting, and from my six years' experience as an admin, this appears to be a cut and paste job, and possibly is a copyright violation. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 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 List of the first LGBT holders of political offices. Ultimately this is a matter of strength of argument: That this is a WP:CFORK of List of the first LGBT holders of political offices is a strong policy-based argument, and the "keep" opinions do not address it. What they should have done is argue, based on citing reliable sources, why the topic of all transgender officeholders (not just the first per office) is a separately notable list topic per WP:LISTN. Such arguments, however, were not made.  Sandstein  13:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elected Transgender Officials Around The World[edit]

Elected Transgender Officials Around The World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. While I understand what the creator was trying to do here, it's a definite misfire in actual execution. For starters, this list doesn't just include people once: if they got reelected to a second or third term or to a different office, they get relisted a second or third or fourth time for each reelection rather than just once. And secondly, in order to pad the topic out as much as possible this is also including non-notable positions like non-profit-organizational boards of directors and internal political party committees and civil servants and constituency assistants and unsuccessful candidates, rather than restricting itself to actual political officeholders. (Tangential aside: how does somebody try this hard to shoehorn Jamie Lee Hamilton and Micheline Montreuil into the Canada list, yet somehow miss Estefania Cortes-Vargas?) Noteworthy firsts should certainly be included in List of the first LGBT holders of political offices, but there's not much encyclopedic basis for a mess like this to stand alone as a separate list topic. And even if it were to be kept, this would not be its correct title, either. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with all of your points above that this article has some pretty serious flaws, but I think it would be better to improve the article rather than deleting it outright. Changing the format to a table (something like that in List of elected and appointed female heads of state), and having strict, clear standards for inclusion would do a lot to bring this article up to Wikipedia's standards. mineffle ^(talk) 07:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But why would we need to maintain it as a standalone list, separate from List of the first LGBT holders of political offices? Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Bearcat. I am sympathetic to the issues involved as a gay man and a Trans* ally. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Valid encyclopedic list. The specifics of the execution are an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - That said, this is a clear fork. Carrite (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's a subject that would be too limited and diluted if pushed into an article of firsts even though many of these people are indeed firsts. Transgender elected officials are noteworthy for being openly trans in extremely anti-trans times, although some parts of the world are getting a bit better. I found this list fascinating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:F47A:CA39:9FBE:B5A0 (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Red_kite#Observation. Previous closure was way out of process, but the end result seems unlikely to upset anyone. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red kite feeding in Wales[edit]

Red kite feeding in Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Following deletion discussion on November 18, resulting in merge, merge has now been completed into Red kite#Observation. Mountain^cirque 15:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The previous Afd was a non-admin closure to merge, by Davey2010, after just 1 day, with two merge !votes. Which I wouldn't have done. But anyway. The nominator (of both Afds) then added a single sentence to Red kite#Observation. None of this was contested. Does the nominator simply want to redirect to the target article now? If so, we don't need an Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that about covers it; there wasn't much more than one sentence's worth of additional material. Suggest just replacing the former article with a redirect now.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do it myself, right now, if the previous Afd had been allowed to run its normal course. But the quick non-admin closure gives me pause, so I'll let someone else do it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Pagel[edit]

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

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

The bauble from the Cannes Corporate Media & TV Awards seems to be a claim of notability, but imo it's too niche. WP:GNG. Google hits all self-published. TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - blatant abuse of Wikipedia as a resume host, based on how it is written. No credible allegation of notability has been raised; only one source. Bearian (talk) 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are We There Yet? (London Elektricity album)[edit]

Are We There Yet? (London Elektricity album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUM criteria and no claims of notability as per WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have expanded the article, added sources and linked to other pages. Robcuiper (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:09, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Monson[edit]

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

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

No apparent notability outside of YouTube. Appeared in only two independent films, both of whom were YouTube-related. Sources solely include YouTube and IMDb. Fails WP:ENT for the most part. Throast (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable YouTube performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable YouTube "celebrity". Gee, I can sleep at night now knowing that Wendy's won't respond to his tweets. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. not notable. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:54, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jef Klein[edit]

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

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

I'm not sure I can speak for the book, but I find no evidence of notability for the author this article is about. No sources meeting WP:GNG, and nothing meeting WP:BIO. The USABookNews History/Media/Entertainment award appears to be mentioned online almost exclusively in the context of this book or one called Forgotten Hollywood, and appears to be from an award mill for self-published books: "We Picks Winners! Our panel of industry judges continues to deliver fantastic results on an annual basis! Hundreds of titles have received national media coverage and increased sales as a direct result of placing in the The Best Book Awards!" There are only eight Google hits for "Independent Publishers Regional Book Award" (three of them in the context of this author), so that isn't likely to be a notable award. Largoplazo (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The IPBA award actually does appear to be noteworthy; we have an article about it, and I've added a citation for it. That said, getting a tie for silver medal in the U.S. North-East region isn't exactly an amazing accolade. -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was originally written as IPRBA instead of IPBA. As far as the IPBA goes, in 2007 they gave awards in 65 national categories alone[1], before even getting to the regional ones. So I'm not sure how much we'd consider second place for one of the regional awards to contribute to a finding of notability. Ah: I now just found a source for the award in question. If I counted correctly, there are eight U.S. regions (and two Canadian ones), and both fiction and nonfiction awards for each region. Largoplazo (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, agreed, they give out far too many awards for a second-place tie winner in one of eight regions to really be considered noteworthy. Just figured it was worth pointing out that the award wasn't entirely illegitimate. -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only indication of notability is the regional IPBA award, which just isn't enough on its own. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails notability guidelines. SW3 5DL (talk) 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ficha Manzi Yako[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NSONG. - MrX 12:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per MrX. Fails WP:NSONG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Plaza Shopping Centre[edit]

Hollywood Plaza Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG. 1 gnews hit. A 1 storey with 22,000 square metres is very small by WP standards LibStar (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Distinct lack of coverage from secondary sources. Even though this article has only just been created, its size is unlikely to ever make it into a noteworthy article. Ajf773 (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails notability guidelines. Agree with Ajf773 that, while this is a new article, it's unlikely to develop further. Wikipedia is not a platform for publicity. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undateable John[edit]

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

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

This is one of two articles that were written in order to promote Kash Hovey. A look for this film shows little coverage beyond some announcements that Joan Jett was going to produce the movie. There hasn't been any true coverage for the movie since 2013, so it wouldn't pass WP:NFF any time soon and likely won't pass until if/when it releases. (On a side note I'm unsure as to how big Hovey's role actually is, given that his name doesn't even show up on the main IMDb page until you go to "all cast", which implys that it's likely a minor role.)

I recommend salting this to prevent recreation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, full disclosure: I've blocked both of the accounts that have been editing/creating the Hovey articles for reasons that are listed on their talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, barring any evidence of actual attention by reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't IMDB Lite. --Calton | Talk 07:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Calton. Well said. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:26, 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  13:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little St. Nick Foundation[edit]

Little St. Nick Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All sources are created by the organization itself. No sign it is in any way notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Found one local, independent source, FoxNews-St. Louis news report, but otherwise, not generally known. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:24, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RLMDL[edit]

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

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

Delete. Article about a musical project with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and very little evidence of reliable source coverage to support it -- six of the ten references here are to primary sources like his own website, his own Bandcamp and the record label, while two of the remaining four are to blogs -- and of the two that still survive that disqualifier, one (NOW) is a purely WP:ROUTINE concert listing, and the other (Impose Magazine) just gives them a blurb's worth of coverage in a "potpourri of several topics" sort of article. This is simply not substantive coverage for the purposes of passing WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good.Co[edit]

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

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

unreliable PR sources only, and a promotional article. Written by now-banned paid editor DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As nom said, PR article. WP:PROMO -- Dane ^talk 01:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to StepStone, which acquired the company. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:44, 16 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 after several weeks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MCARaTS[edit]

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

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

One-sentence stub; all information is already contained in the Atmospheric radiative transfer codes table. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 16 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  13:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Don's Toys[edit]

Uncle Don's Toys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources except a broken link that was gone at least since 2012. Even if the store had a celebrity clientele, that wouldn't automatically translate into notability, which is not inherited from related topics. This was nominated for deletion nine years ago and kept because apparently back then the one source was still available, but it hasn't gotten any better, and there's no indication that it can get any better. Huon (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of notability. No news results found. -- Dane ^talk 01:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reliable sources found to provide the significant coverage needed to pass WP:CORP or WP:GNG. GAB^gab 23:27, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Hawgood[edit]

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

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a creative professional with no strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. The strongest notability claim here is that she was one member of a band which competed on but did not win a reality show — so even the band don't even clear WP:NMUSIC yet, let alone individual members of it. This is based almost entirely on primary sources and YouTube videos rather than reliable source coverage in media; the only source here that even begins to count for anything toward notability being a "local girl gets on TV" piece in her own hometown newspaper, but that's just not enough to give her a WP:GNG pass. Further, there's a likely conflict of interest here, as the creator's username was "Thedancer2016". As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which reality show competitors get to give themselves articles just because they exist — reliable source coverage in media, supporting a claim of notability that passes an actual inclusion standard, must be present for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears to have a number of different third party Citations other than Britains Got Talent194.70.64.250 (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already addressed the reasons why the citations aren't demonstrating what's needed: almost all of them are primary sources, not reliable sources, and the two that are reliable sources aren't demonstrating notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you're right as you have much more experience on Wikapedia than me but I think there are a lot of Wikapedia pages where the person is maybe not notable enough to meet with Wikapedia guidelines. Are you going to delete them all?194.70.64.250 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Lizard (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lizard (talk) 16:47, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lakota Thunder[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND. Not notable, has no sources. Evking22 (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:28, 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 redirect to Longmeadow, Massachusetts. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Middle School (Longmeadow, Massachusetts)[edit]

Williams Middle School (Longmeadow, Massachusetts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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